Check out our supercool new embassy in Iraq

[Desert_Eagle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

The embassy will sit on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.
The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.
“We can’t talk about it. Security reasons,” Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

“It’s somewhat self-evident that there’s going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several years,” he said in Washington

Well there goes our hopes of pulling out of Iraq any time soon. My prediction? We will stay there until Bush is out of office, and when the new Democrat president pulls us out, he will be blamed for the resulting violence and chaos.

And who would have thought, at a time when half of Iraqs population is without electricity or clean drinking water, what would be more appropriate than the largest facility of it's kind in the world, complete with swimming pools, a gymnasium, comissary, food court, and American club.

[B.A.Baracus]

Ooo you hit the nail on the head with that prediction DE. The president after Bush will have a lot of cleaning up to do, unless Bush succeeds in whatever hes planning. Just for kicks, how many days after its completion, do you think this Embassy will be bombed?

I don’t think the construction of a giant American made building in the middle of their country will send a friendly message. It will just remind them of who destroyed their families/homes/lives. That’s one hell of an insult.

w00t w00t "King George"

[Nuts]

Well there goes our hopes of pulling out of Iraq any time soon.
If an embassy is an indication of occupation, then I imagine that we are occupying a large majority of the free world. In turn, we are currently being occupied by numerous foreign countries at this very moment. Scary, ain't it?

My prediction? We will stay there until Bush is out of office, and when the new Democrat president pulls us out, he will be blamed for the resulting violence and chaos.
In other words, if the next President does something moronic like abandon Iraq, a move that would be widely criticized by the world community and U.S. citizens alike, then he will be blamed. Yes, that sums it up nicely.

And who would have thought, at a time when half of Iraqs population is without electricity or clean drinking water, what would be more appropriate than the largest facility of it's kind in the world, complete with swimming pools, a gymnasium, comissary, food court, and American club.
This is perhaps the only smidgen of logic in your entire post. Too bad it doesn't offset the illogical rhetoric from the rest.

[Desert_Eagle]

If an embassy is an indication of occupation, then I imagine that we are occupying a large majority of the free world. In turn, we are currently being occupied by numerous foreign countries at this very moment. Scary, ain't it?

Differance between "an embassy" and "6 times the largest in the world?" I think so.

In other words, if the next President does something moronic like abandon Iraq, a move that would be widely criticized by the world community and U.S. citizens alike, then he will be blamed. Yes, that sums it up nicely.

Well besides the "moronic" part, yes. But most US citizens would support a withdrawal by 2008, if not well before that. And by what standard of reasoning do you argue that the situation which magically improve the longer we stay? There is no indication that would be the case, so are you arguing that we should stay forever? 10 years? 20 years? What? Please clarify.

I don't see how you could blame a new president for Bushs decision to invade Iraq.

This is perhaps the only smidgen of logic in your entire post. Too bad it doesn't offset the illogical rhetoric from the rest.

I'm not a neocon appeaser. I do not come here to present my views as neutral or pretend that I have to cater to your (immoral) political views. Many liberals on this forum do just that, but I'm not one of them.

[Nuts]

Differance between "an embassy" and "6 times the largest in the world?" I think so.
And you opinion is gospel, right? It's already been established that we will have a continued presence in Iraq for the indefinite future. What hasn't been decided is the level and function of this presence. This is the IR, you don't have the luxury of making assumptions and gross generalisations.

But most US citizens would support a withdrawal by 2008, if not well before that. I have seen numerous polls with varying results. I think it's irresponsible to cite a singular poll and state it as a factual representation of the public's desire.

And by what standard of reasoning do you argue that the situation which magically improve the longer we stay? There is no indication that would be the case, so are you arguing that we should stay forever? 10 years? 20 years? What? Please clarify.
Because my crystal ball isn't working, I'll have to refrain from giving you a specific date and time. What I can say is that we have a responsibility to stabilize the country before we exit the majority of our troops.

I don't see how you could blame a new president for Bushs decision to invade Iraq.
It's funny how you equate stabilizing Iraq with the decision to invade it in the first place.

I'm not a neocon appeaser. I do not come here to present my views as neutral or pretend that I have to cater to your (immoral) political views. Many liberals on this forum do just that, but I'm not one of them.
No, you present your own platform, unique from any I have ever seen. Be proud.

[Desert_Eagle]

And you opinion is gospel, right? It's already been established that we will have a continued presence in Iraq for the indefinite future. What hasn't been decided is the level and function of this presence. This is the IR, you don't have the luxury of making assumptions and gross generalisations.

Do we have the luxury of having our own opinions? I think so.

And if thats the case, then you have absolutely no reason to oppose Irans "peaceful" nuclear "energy" program. You are assuming they will make weapons, remember?

I have seen numerous polls with varying results. I think it's irresponsible to cite a singular poll and state it as a factual representation of the public's desire.

Many polls confirm that. It's only logical (and historical) to assume that as the war carries on longer and longer, the public will desire to bring the troops home and withdraw. To say otherwise would be ahistorical.

Because my crystal ball isn't working, I'll have to refrain from giving you a specific date and time. What I can say is that we have a responsibility to stabilize the country before we exit the majority of our troops.

What if we can't stabilize the country? Stay forever?

Ok I'll put it to you like this: How long would be too long? 10 years? 20? 100? What would be an absolute maximum in your opinion, or are you setting that to infinity?

It's funny how you equate stabilizing Iraq with the decision to invade it in the first place.

Well because the new president didn't invade Iraq so he can't be held responsible for the mess that Bush created. Pretty simple actually.

[Pisces]

Well unfortanetly we are held responciable for the mistakes of the previous generation. I'm sure we would all like to go on increasing carbon levels for another hundred years but we are not given a clean slate to begin with and we have to react to the mistakes of the past generations to avoid great amounts of death. Likewise any president has to do his best to clean up, Bush got you into this mess but you are there untill Iraq is stable.

Now why Bush is spending vast amounts of money so he can go swimming in a war zone is beyond me. If he is able to build a such a complex then he should be attempting to restore vital public services to Iraq so then Iraq can finally start to move forward to stablisation THEN the troops can finally be called home, but apparently no life is worth more than a pool.

I agree, the complex would be quite an insult; this luxurious palace built on stolen land by the so called liberators to remind them all that America isn't occupating, it cares about you, it wants you all to live substandard living conditions while George gets his own food court in a place with enough reinforcement to block out the sounds of people dieing. The fucking Berlin wall around it is just there to protect us from you.

[Desert_Eagle]

Well unfortanetly we are held responciable for the mistakes of the previous generation. I'm sure we would all like to go on increasing carbon levels for another hundred years but we are not given a clean slate to begin with and we have to react to the mistakes of the past generations to avoid great amounts of death. Likewise any president has to do his best to clean up, Bush got you into this mess but you are there untill Iraq is stable.

Do we have any reason to believe that our troops staying there will help stabilize the country? It seems most of the violence is due to the fact that we are still there.

[GenocideAlive]

Do we have any reason to believe that our troops staying there will help stabilize the country? It seems most of the violence is due to the fact that we are still there.
Um, I think this can best be most appropriately solved via a wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation

[Desert_Eagle]

Oh so your saying the sectarian violence would exist if we didn't invade. Thats an interesting position, I haven't heard that one before. Most Middle East experts and military analysts would probably agree with you, but your more than welcome to elaborate on your position.

[GenocideAlive]

Well because the new president didn't invade Iraq so he can't be held responsible for the mess that Bush created. Pretty simple actually.
And so, any former President's mistakes cannot be assumed by a new President. We should inform those countries in which we are indebited.

[Desert_Eagle]

And so, any former President's mistakes cannot be assumed by a new President.

He certainly can't be blamed for them.

[SHISHKABOB]

Sure he could. Being blamed for something and assuming responsibilty for something are different things. Being blamed is when other people say its your fault even if it isnt or if it is. Assuming the blame is taking responsibility for someone elses mistakes but they are not yours. The next president may or may not be blamed for the problems in Iraq, but he will have to assume responsibility. So thank you for reiterating what GE just said.

[Desert_Eagle]

Oh ok, he can't reasonably be blamed for them.

[Wick3d]

[edited]

And why shouldn't we have a large embassy in Iraq? The US is having far more direct contact with the government of Iraq at this point than any other country. Having a small embassy would be a crime in itself and would undermine the trust the Iraqi government has in the US's determination to get democracy started in the region. A large embassy allows us to handle all the work we have to do in Iraq, and without one, we wouldn't be able to fufill our commitment.

[madman5]

Oh so your saying the sectarian violence would exist if we didn't invade.

The sectarian violence exists because we invaded and removed Saddam. Saying that the violence exists because we are there still is false.

Another thing that causes violence is the fact that the first time we were there, we stopped at the border and left the Shiites (sp) to finish Saddam. Saddam then killed them, and now that we are there, they are attacking us for not finishing the job in the first place.

madman5~

[Modred]

Oh ok, he can't reasonably be blamed for them
The next president can not be blamed for the mistakes made by the current president, unless of course the next president was part of the decision making process for the current president. But assuming an unrelated party (by which I mean person) takes office in January 2009, this person will share no blame for the mistakes made by President Bush. However, by taking the role of President, this new person will assume responsbility for the welfare of the nation and for any future mistakes made in Iraq. So the next President cannot recieve blame for what Bush has done, but because he or she must accept responsbility for the US on the day he or she is inaugurated, any mistakes made by the new administration in relation to Iraq can and should be blamed on the new administration.

Given that Iraq is currently in upheaval, the embassy should have ample defense forces and be somewhat self-sustaining (as it sounds to be). Also take into note the following post from the US Embassy in Iraq, dated June 28, 2004.

US Mission Iraq
June 28, 2004


The United States established diplomatic relations with the Iraqi Government on Monday, June 28. The United States had severed relations with the regime of Saddam Hussein in 1990.

Later in the day, John Negroponte, who will serve as the American ambassador to the Interim Iraqi Government, arrived in Baghdad. He will present his credentials shortly. A media advisory with details announcing this event will be issued.

The US didn't have any sort of direct, diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1990 until a full year after the invasion. So you could say a decent Embassy is overdue.

[Desert_Eagle]

The US didn't have any sort of direct, diplomatic relations with Iraq from 1990 until a full year after the invasion. So you could say a decent Embassy is overdue.

The largest in the world?

[hammocksleeper]

The largest in the world?
It wouldn't make sense to put a small embassy in a country that is as far from Americanization and Western values as none other, and to make a huge one in a place where America and its values are already well-established and embedded in that country's culture. It's not necessary to have such a large concentration of American resources in a place like that. In Iraq, it's more likely.

[Desert_Eagle]

You guys are being silly now. Tell me why in the hell any Iraqi would appreciate this monument to Americas wealth when half of them don't have electricity or clean water?

You don't encourage starving people to accept American values by building the largest and most expensive embassy in the world at a time when people don't have electricity, water, sanitation, schools, or jobs. If anything this will do nothing but piss off Iraqis.

[hammocksleeper]

You guys are being silly now. Tell me why in the hell any Iraqi would appreciate this monument to Americas wealth when half of them don't have electricity or clean water?

You don't encourage starving people to accept American values by building the largest and most expensive embassy in the world at a time when people don't have electricity, water, sanitation, schools, or jobs. If anything this will do nothing but piss off Iraqis.
Those American resources that I mentioned are not there to serve the Iraqi people, they're for us, Americans. "The role of [an embassy] is to protect in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State as directed by the sending State; ascertaining by lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State" (from wiki)

[Desert_Eagle]

Like I said, that is a ridiculous position. There is no need to build a 3 billion dollar embassy, the largest in the world complete with an indoor swimming pool and American club, in a place where half the people don't have electricity, clean water, or sanitation. It's silly actually.

If you ask me the new embassy is pretty much the new Capitol building. I believe most national decisions will be made there.

[Veeger]

On what basis do you claim that you believe that national decisions will be made there? What pretence, what policy report, what makes you believe this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this forum for well-informed debates? Unsupportive claims based on insufficient, or a complete lack of, evidence should be made in the General Discussion forum. Not here.