Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   House Democrats delighted to have passed a bill forbidding permanent US bases overseas. The fact that this is already US policy does not detract from their stunning victory   (insidebayarea.com) divider line
39
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

492 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:24 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
mediaho
2007-07-26 4:00:06 PM  
You may not have noticed, but established US policy doesn't mean shiat to the Administration. However, neither does Congress, rule of law or the Constitution so yea, it's useless.
 
GrooveMonkeyZero
2007-07-26 4:02:19 PM  
So what does this do to Okinawa/Diego Garcia/Rammstein, etc?
 
GrooveMonkeyZero
2007-07-26 4:03:23 PM  
Ahh, never mind, I decided perhaps RTFA would be a good idea.
 
whidbey
2007-07-26 4:13:41 PM  
Yeah right, like they're not setting up something permanent in Iraq.
 
RobertBruce
2007-07-26 4:14:09 PM  
jesus theres a whole lot of stupid in there. N. Korea is going to attack Japan before it would ever even think about starting shiat with us. talk about modifying agreements? we could just get rid of that little agreement to defend japan. they've already been buildinig their own militry again. let them fight their own battles.
 
Nogrhi [OhFark]
2007-07-26 4:22:36 PM  
GrooveMonkeyZero: So what does this do to Okinawa/Diego Garcia/Rammstein, etc?

Well Rammstein will just release another album.
 
Mordant
2007-07-26 4:27:33 PM  
Vote Republican in 2008 and put a stop to this madness.
 
itazurakko
2007-07-26 4:50:32 PM  
whidbey: Yeah right, like they're not setting up something permanent in Iraq.

Getting bases is half the real goal of this whole shindig, you betcha they're setting up bases. They're just calling the main one an "embassy."

There are many in Japan who would like the bases gone, sure. People protest them from time to time. However, there's no way in hell the US will ever leave a base on other than their own schedule, such is the realpolitik. Any new Japanese military will be expected to go along with all the various US military adventures too, that's just how it is. A lot of the pressure for Japan to get rid of article 9 is coming from the US.
 
rockhound [TotalFark]
2007-07-26 5:02:07 PM  
I don't think you know the difference between policy and law.
 
GurneyHalleck
2007-07-26 5:28:46 PM  
If there's a new way. I'll be the first in line.
 
strangeguitar
2007-07-26 5:39:33 PM  
GurneyHalleck: If there's a new way. I'll be the first in line.
Funny. I had the same song going through my head.
/It better work this time.
 
Snowflake Tubbybottom
2007-07-26 6:06:48 PM  
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said "the Democratic Congress will go on record -- every day if necessary -- to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is taking in Iraq" and to "fight for a redeployment of our forces as the central element of a new-direction strategy for Iraq."

Yes Nancy we know. We also know you aren't really going to do a damn thing before the '08 elections so this can be used as an issue. And then if/when the dems do win you still won't actually do anything to remove the troops.

Bush may have shown the deftness of a monkey farking a football in running the the show over there but lets not pretend its going to change anytime soon with a new sheriff in town.
 
emotion_lotion
2007-07-26 6:30:55 PM  
Whatever, like the US farking around with other countries and thier govenments has anything to do with whats going on today.
 
arasnick
2007-07-26 6:32:36 PM  
YAY for the dems *sarcasm*...they are off to such a good start for this country...is this what we really have to look forward to for the next few years??? how much would it be to move furniture to EU? that might be worth it considering how the dems like to run things....losers
 
choice and consequence
2007-07-26 6:34:03 PM  
talk about modifying agreements? we could just get rid of that little agreement to defend japan. they've already been buildinig their own militry again. let them fight their own battles.

Helllloooo Asian arms race. A weak-as-fark Russia, a tottering North Korea, China with 10 million young unmarried men to get rid of and cash for modern weapons, and Japan rearms and still declines to call WWII atrocities what they were... yeah, this will end well.
 
cuervobo
2007-07-26 6:36:15 PM  
Mordant 2007-07-26 04:27:33 PM
Vote Republican in 2008 and put a stop to this madness.

/ok I'll bite..... I approve of congress and any and all investigations into this administration and where ever that may lead us to (D) or (R) or (I). It is just fine to use my tax money to put a bitter end to the insanity that has been happening way too long. Other than that sure I'll vote republican as soon as the leopard changes its spots.

// now back into your hole Mr. Troll
 
smeegle
2007-07-26 6:42:35 PM  
Having perused the posts and associated threads downstream, I have to ask, Is it Freeper Day?
 
Descartes
2007-07-26 6:49:07 PM  
Which permanent US bases overseas are going to be closed now?

/I'm guessing all none of them.
 
BobtheFascist
2007-07-26 7:13:22 PM  
OK, Nance. We know. You don't like us in Iraq. You also won't let us at our own frikkin oil either. Eventually you'll have to pick one.
 
larry00
2007-07-26 7:13:48 PM  
Why am I not surprised ?
 
Frank N Stein
2007-07-26 7:19:56 PM  
Descartes

You may want to read the farking article.
 
srtpointman
2007-07-26 7:24:31 PM  
I hope the dems don't hurt their shoulders patting themselves on the back.
 
GodsTumor
2007-07-26 7:25:22 PM  
Freeper Thursday?
 
itazurakko
2007-07-26 7:30:23 PM  
Frank N Stein: You may want to read the farking article.

It's a minor hairline of a difference, really. The US bases in Asia are as permanent as it gets. Hell, the unpredictability of life itself means nothing is ever truly guaranteed forever, but on the ground it really doesn't make a shred of difference.

Whatever you want to call the bases in Asia, the US is trying to get that same long term forward deployment in Iraq.
 
GodsTumor
2007-07-26 7:57:12 PM  
There are at least 737 military bases outside the US ...
Probably closer to 1000 since bases in England and other countries don't have to be listed much less the black sites...
Empire
 
Descartes
2007-07-26 7:59:25 PM  
Descartes: Which permanent US bases overseas are going to be closed now?

Frank N Stein: You may want to read the farking article.

From the article:
" 'No permanent bases' is already the policy of the United States, and there is no such thing as a `permanent' U.S.military base in foreign countries," Boehner added. "All U.S. military bases abroad are subject to cooperative agreements with the respective host countries. The agreements can be altered or eliminated at any time."



So I was right when I guessed not a single base would be affected.
Thanks for the advice!
 
Magorn [TotalFark]
2007-07-26 8:02:07 PM  
It's also US policy that we follow the Geneva convention and do not torture prisoners. How's that working out for us?
 
Satyagraha
2007-07-26 8:04:52 PM  
The report goes on to say the bill has no affect on the "Enduring" bases we've established in Iraq nor does mention that Bush will add a signing statement exempting himself, his administration, his lackys and daughters from following no stinkin' laws congress might pass.
 
Comrade438
2007-07-26 9:03:18 PM  
Magorn: How's that working out for us?

Nearly as well as legitimate voting in Chicago.
 
larry00
2007-07-26 9:21:08 PM  
Like every law ever made there's a way around it.
You build your base give it to the host country [ call it a public works project ] lease it back long term of course for x amount a year and everyone is happy.
We have some temporary/permanent bases we have had for over 60 years.
 
DistendedPendulusFrenulum
2007-07-26 9:35:42 PM  
Um, whether it is US policy or not doesn't seem to matter a whit to the Executive branch these days, so that may change the formula a little.

.
 
noneoftheabove
2007-07-26 9:57:09 PM  
First you have to define what a "permanent" base is. Is it one where we own the land? In that case, virtually none (if any) of our overseas bases are permanent. Is it based on paperwork or an official statement saying it's permanent? Whatever qualifier you come up with, there's a way around it.

Of course, it doesn't matter anyways - setting up a garrison force in Iraq was the goal from day one, and whatever legal/bureaucratic manipulations are required to reach that end will be done in short order.

We don't leave under our own power, and the few times we actually get kicked out, we tend to hold a grudge.
 
Sharkface217
2007-07-26 10:15:18 PM  
To be fair, there are several countries that we shouldn't have bases in *cough*Iraq*cough*.


Also, I'd like to note that this is the reason why Osama Bin Laden declared jihad on America.


/that is all
 
larry00
2007-07-26 10:16:51 PM  
We get kicked out [ Subic Bay ] we regroup find another host , redouble another base, or rely on our naval carriers.
No need for panic cause often the base is no longer needed anyway.
 
Alien Robot
2007-07-26 10:22:00 PM  
The "temporary" base in Guantanamo, Cuba is now in its 104th year of "temporary" operations.
 
Guess_Who
2007-07-26 10:54:05 PM  
Alien Robot: The "temporary" base in Guantanamo, Cuba is now in its 104th year of "temporary" operations.

Well considering that we own that land I don't think we would be leaving anytime soon.
 
Satyagraha
2007-07-26 11:52:38 PM  
Guess_Who: Alien Robot: The "temporary" base in Guantanamo, Cuba is now in its 104th year of "temporary" operations.

Well considering that we own that land I don't think we would be leaving anytime soon


Remember the Maine...AHhhhhaaaaa the good old spoils of war
 
Churchill2004
2007-07-26 11:55:40 PM  
Guess_Who: Well considering that we own that land I don't think we would be leaving anytime soon.

Actually, we lease the land. We still pay 'em for it, too.
 
IXI Jim IXI
2007-07-27 9:03:08 AM  
Guess_Who: Well considering that we own that land I don't think we would be leaving anytime soon.

temporary bases that are actually permanent, owned land that's actually leased...

You work for the government, don't you? ;)
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

All the submissions, none of the calories.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.