>>>Are you asking if we are going to maintain a permanent presence there? I don't think that is planned but I'm not privy to that kind of info.
>>
>>Yep, that's what I was asking. And I read that your expectation is not. I understand that none of *us* knows official 'plans' but I think we both agree that nothing has been stated that leads us to believe there will be an on-going U.S. military presence after "withdrawl".
>>
>>cheers
>
>US has military presence in Japan, Germany and in other ex-"enemies" countries. Do they feel like they're being occupied?

No. But President Bush keeps saying that when Iraq is ready and capable, U.S. troops will leave. He has never said '... some U.S. troops will leave'.

This thread was started by me when a talking head said the U.S. was building 14 PERMANENT military bases in Iraq.
To me those could have been for the benefit of Iraqi troops, but most likely for a continued U.S. presence after the "troops are withdrawn".

If U.S. troops stay on after withdrawl I'd say there was sleight-of-hand going on. Much like the guy who owed me a wad of $$$ in my pool playing days. One day he says to me "OK Nelson. Will you take half as full payment?". I said yes. "Alright" says he, "Ill have it for you next week". Of course I told him no deal. Same should go with U.S. troops if they stay after withdrawl.

By the way, Germany and Japan were the ATTACKERS. Iraq was not an attacker of the U.S. (or of anyone else in the 10+ years before the war).