Should the United States build a permanent military base in Iraq?

Question

We have permanent bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea which we have all fought against in previous wars so should we have a permanent presence in Iraq with a new base?

Answer 1

We have. They are calling it an Embassy however...

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/05/...

Answer 2

Yes. I have a funny feeling that I have actually met, and talked with, more Iraqi's than the average poster on here, and funny, but many more want us to stay, than want us to leave. Do they want the killing to stop? Yes, that is WHY they would like to see a continued Presence.

Answer 3

we pretty much already have, do you think we'll ever actually leave?

Answer 4

The way things are going. Most likely

Answer 5

We are.  That's what McCain meant by being in Iraq for 100 years.

Answer 6

If Iraq's government is good with it once they become responsible for their own security, then yes.  If not, then no.  Japan, Germany, and Korea all want us there.  

Answer 7

First of all, you're only partly correct, the part about korea is what I refer to.  Our bases there are in South Korea, and we did not fight against them.

  As far as Iraq, no, we should honor the fact we invaded a sovereign nation for no valid reason, and get the h**l out, now !

  And the president that ordered that invasion should be tried for war crimes, as Iraq posed no threat to this country and played no part in 9/11.

Answer 8

How would you feel about Russia or China building permanent bases here?

We should build bases in Iraq only if the Iraqi people want us to.  Otherwise we are no more than an occupying power.  

In fact Iraq can't truly be free and sovereign until they have the power to ask the US to leave, and take control of their own oil.  Which, I believe, a goodly majority of them would like to do.