THE WHITE HOUSE Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE

SPY 694.04

+0.7%

Jan 9 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: goldworldnet who wrote (7617)	8/22/2007 10:46:30 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) of 25737

"We have all the basing rights we need for Iraq." No, we don't. We don't have long-term basing agreements and, when 'Iraq' fragments into three rump nations, we won't have basing rights except perhaps in Kurdistan (which, fortunately, should be quite sufficient). The Shia-Iraqi nation will increasingly be allied with Shia Iran (expanding upon their current mutual defense pact...), while the rump Sunni-Iraq will likely be host to much military supply from the Gulf Sunni Arab states. (Possibly 'expeditionary forces from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., as the Saudis have promised....) There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between short-term basing agreements, and long-term basing agreements --- as we have recently seen in Central South Asia, where we have had to pull back from bases when the locals either did not extend the term agreements... or else jacked the annual fee they want up so high (HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in one case) so that the bases were not worth it to us any more.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next