US Military Bases and the Afghan Pipeline (Split from "Obama's Speech")

[JihadJane]

Your post reads like a parody of a left-winger.

Perhaps you should get out more.

Please do tell about Afghanistan's energy resources.

The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be understood outside of the regional energy-resource context. Significantly, it also produces most of the world's opium.

These words are true regardless of your creative interpretation. Nor do these words preclude that the US has done things that Obama (and you and I) are not so happy about.

How many of the USA's foreign policy actions have been expressions of a struggle to give meaning to the ideal that all are created equal?

Except these violent extremists do exist, and they do kill innocent men, women and children, and it is his duty to protect the American people. And while you can play infantile games with the word "forced", the events that eminated from Afghanistan are very much a reality that could not be ignored. (Mind you, I think the way we've gone about Afghanistan is foolhardy and I'm dubious it's going to resolve favorably.)

No-one forced the US to take military action against the people of Afghanistan. The US needs enemies for its war economy to function. It has done everything in its power to encourage the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism.

What give the US the exclusive right to use extreme violence to protect its interests?

I agree that the US has a lot of unnecessary blood on its hands with Iraq as the prime example. I'm not sure what you expect Obama to say though.

He could apologize, for a start, and offer to pay reparations for the terrible destruction wrought by his country.

This might be your most absurd selective interpretation of them all. But that said, yes, it is in part the fault of Muslim communities who supported the jihadists, e.g. Saudi.

If he means Saudi Arabia he can say Saudi Arabia.

Support for "jihadists" cannot be separated from US and UK colonial actions, past and present. It doesn't spring from nowhere from within Muslim "communities", whatever "communities" means.

Damned if he doesn't, damned if he does.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. Obama's speech is an expression of imperial anxiety. US ME politics are still driven by its need for ME energy resources. Obama is pretending that all that oil stuff is a thing of the past which is rubbish! Peaking global oil production makes the US energy position more and more precarious and desperate.

[Pardalis]

No-one forced the US to take military action against the people of Afghanistan.

Of course that conclusion is totally dependent on your preconceived idea that 9/11 wasn't the work of Al Qaeda.

You start with a false premise like that and everything else falls appart.

The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be understood outside of the regional energy-resource context.

BTW, how's that non-existing gas pipeline going?

[Ziggurat]

The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be understood outside of the regional energy-resource context.

Yeah. I mean, just look at all the pipelines and oil wells we're building there.

Oh, um... yeah.

Well, there's a lot of desert there, and muslims, so there's bound to be oil somewhere, am I right? It's GOTTA be about oil. Just haven't found the oil in question yet. Gimme some time, I'm sure I will.

Significantly, it also produces most of the world's opium.

Bringing new meaning to the term "flex fuel vehicles"? Sorry, on this one I'm just confused.

No-one forced the US to take military action against the people of Afghanistan.

Yeah! I mean, why couldn't we just let Al Qaeda keep killing Americans?

The US needs enemies for its war economy to function.

Sorry, but this one is so absurd that I can't even pretend to agree. Did you see the economy during the Clinton years?

Support for "jihadists" cannot be separated from US and UK colonial actions, past and present.

Yeah! Because of all those US colonies that we spread throughout the region! Let me just find my map... hmmm... I swear the 51st state was somewhere around here, can't seem to find it...

[JihadJane]

Yeah. I mean, just look at all the pipelines and oil wells we're building there.

You appear not to have consider the possibility that the US has, once again, failed to achieve it's geostrategic goals. Cheney promised a war that would last generations but it is unlikely he was envisaging quagmires.

Sucking on the twin teats of 911 and the "War on Terror" (now rebranded as the War on Violent Extremists) has stupified a body politic that has never really recovered from its earlier anti-communist soma addiction.



Oh, um... yeah.

Well, there's a lot of desert there, and muslims, so there's bound to be oil somewhere, am I right? It's GOTTA be about oil. Just haven't found the oil in question yet. Gimme some time, I'm sure I will.

Ignorance is bliss. It easy enough to understand the importance of controlling Afghanistan to anyone seeking to control Central Asian and ME energy resources so I'll just assume you prefer baby bliss and leave you to enjoy it.

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." Dick Cheney, 1998.




Bringing new meaning to the term "flex fuel vehicles"? Sorry, on this one I'm just confused.

Never mind, a little confusion it won't kill ya!



Yeah! I mean, why couldn't we just let Al Qaeda keep killing Americans?

How many of the millions of people killed, maimed, traumatized and displaced by extreme US violence had anything to do with al "eek" Qaeda?



Sorry, but this one is so absurd that I can't even pretend to agree. Did you see the economy during the Clinton years?

Yes, it was a blissful time of blowing bubbles (now popped).



Yeah! Because of all those US colonies that we spread throughout the region! Let me just find my map... hmmm... I swear the 51st state was somewhere around here, can't seem to find it...

The US has hundreds of military outposts scattered all over the globe protecting its imperial "interests".

[Ziggurat]

You appear not to have consider the possibility that the US has, once again, failed to achieve it's geostrategic goals.

What goals? Building a pipeline through Afghanistan? That idea was abandoned years before 2001, and nobody with a clue expected it to ever be built. You're a conspiracy nut, but your conspiracies don't even make the slightest amount of sense.

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." Dick Cheney, 1998.

And that's why we invaded Afghanistan, to gain control of all its Caspian ports. Or something.

How many of the millions of people killed, maimed, traumatized and displaced by extreme US violence had anything to do with al "eek" Qaeda?

What millions? We didn't kill millions in Afghanistan. And we decreased the number displaced. There has been a net return of refugees to Afghanistan because of our invasion. How do you square that reality with your twisted vision of what we've done?

The US has hundreds of military outposts scattered all over the globe protecting its imperial "interests".

And Allah knows there's no difference between a base we pay to lease and a colony.

[JihadJane]

What goals? Building a pipeline through Afghanistan? That idea was abandoned years before 2001, and nobody with a clue expected it to ever be built. You're a conspiracy nut, but your conspiracies don't even make the slightest amount of sense.

Controlling access to Persian Gulf and Caspian Basin energy resources. (your comment has been reported, BTW)



And that's why we invaded Afghanistan, to gain control of all its Caspian ports. Or something.

Do you have a clue?



What millions? We didn't kill millions in Afghanistan. And we decreased the number displaced. There has been a net return of refugees to Afghanistan because of our invasion. How do you square that reality with your twisted vision of what we've done?

You haven't go a clue!


And Allah knows there's no difference between a base we pay to lease and a colony.

What are these bases for?

[tyr_13]

What are these bases for?

Supporting military actions. Are you actually suggesting that the only thing they could be there for are plundering the natural resources or colonization?

[JihadJane]

Supporting military actions. Are you actually suggesting that the only thing they could be there for are plundering the natural resources or colonization?

What else are they there for?

[Ziggurat]

Controlling access to Persian Gulf and Caspian Basin energy resources. (your comment has been reported, BTW)

And how, pray tell, does a land-locked country control access to the Persian Gulf?

Do you have a clue?

You're right: I have no clue about what possible reason you could think Afghanistan controlled access to the Persian Gulf.

What are these bases for?

Let me guess: killing muslims. That's basically the depth of your opinion on the topic, isn't it?

[tyr_13]

What else are they there for?

Supporting military actions. Housing soldiers. Storing weapons, materials, etc.

Seriously, you really think they are for colonization?

[JihadJane]

Supporting military actions. Housing soldiers. Storing weapons, materials, etc.

Seriously, you really think they are for colonization?



They are there to protect US imperial "interests".

Your short list gives no information as to why these bases are deemed necessary. It's just a description of what a military base is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And how, pray tell, does a land-locked country control access to the Persian Gulf?

You're right: I have no clue about what possible reason you could think Afghanistan controlled access to the Persian Gulf....Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Route (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline)The 1,680 kilometres (1,040 mi) pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India.[3]I think the history is also worth noting:History

The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquishes its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.[2]A deal signed in 2008 hardly sounds like a dead deal.

[Toke]

Could it be that the Afghani gass pipeline is as dead as the bongled robbery of Iraki oil?
Not a lack of intent but of ability?

[tyr_13]

They are there to protect US imperial "interests".

Your short list gives no information as to why these bases are deemed necessary. It's just a description of what a military base is.

And that is why they are needed. The US engages in military actions all over the world (which I'm sure you're very aware of) and these bases make that possible on a very short time table.

They are there to protect US interests. Your cry of 'imperial' is part of your begging the question. They are imperial if they are for colonization, and in your view, they are for colonization because they are 'imperial'. This is faulty logic.

The military personnel are colonist? That's news.

[JihadJane]

And that is why they are needed. The US engages in military actions all over the world (which I'm sure you're very aware of) and these bases make that possible on a very short time table.

They are there to protect US interests. Your cry of 'imperial' is part of your begging the question. They are imperial if they are for colonization, and in your view, they are for colonization because they are 'imperial'. This is faulty logic.

The military personnel are colonist? That's news.

Well, what are they there for?

Why does the US need military bases all over the world to protect its interests? What are these interests?

How many foreign military bases does China, for example, need to protect its global interests?

[tyr_13]

Well, what are they there for?

Why does the US need military bases all over the world to protect its interests? What are these interests?

How many foreign military bases does China, for example, need to protect its global interests?

You know what, nevermind. I'll just let you stew with whatever evil ideas you wanna cook up. I doubt you want to discuss in good faith and no answer I can give will be enough for you.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with the derail you want to take this thread on.

[Ziggurat]

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Route (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline)

Yeah, um... which part of that pipeline is connected to the Persian Gulf again? Oh, that's right: none of it. It doesn't go near the Persian Gulf.

I think the history is also worth noting:

Indeed it is. Note US involvement ended in 1998. We are not part of any of the plans since then, none of which have progressed anywhere, and none of which are likely to any time soon.

A deal signed in 2008 hardly sounds like a dead deal.

Hardly alive either.

[mortimer]

Well, what are they there for?

Why does the US need military bases all over the world to protect its interests? What are these interests?
Because the US has military there. The bases are to support the military. The interests are the US military.
How many foreign military bases does China, for example, need to protect its global interests?
How many terrorist attacks has China had on their soil over the last decade?

[JihadJane]

You know what, nevermind. I'll just let you stew with whatever evil ideas you wanna cook up. I doubt you want to discuss in good faith and no answer I can give will be enough for you.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with the derail you want to take this thread on.


All your answers so far have been tautological. I'll assume from your resort to speculative ad homs that you have no idea why the US needs 700+ military outposts.



Because the US has military there. The bases are to support the military. The interests are the US military.

Why are the military there in the first place? What are the interests that the US military is protecting? Why are the bases located where they are located?

How many terrorist attacks has China had on their soil over the last decade?

Here is a list of nearly 50 between 1997 and 2007:

http://pacificempire.org.nz/2007/03/18/major-terrorist-attacks-in-china-1997-2007/

Your question seems to imply that the US 700+ bases exist protect the US from terrorist attacks. Is that's correct? Seems like it would be somewhat of paranoid overreaction if what you seem to believe were true!

How many of these bases existed before 911? Did the 911 Commission Report argue that it was a shortage of military bases that allowed the 911 attacks to succeed?

How many terrorist attacks has the US had on their soil over the last decade?

[Dr Adequate]

Why are the military there in the first place? What are the interests that the US military is protecting? Why are the bases located where they are located?

How many of these bases existed before 911? Did the 911 Commission Report argue that it was a shortage of military bases that allowed the 911 attacks to succeed?

How many terrorist attacks has the US had on their soil over the last decade? Off you go and find out. When you do, please let us know, citing your sources. Cheers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, Michael Moore said in "F 9/11" that Afghanistan was all about the Pipeline, so it MUST be true....
I expected no better from Jihad Jane, but Skeptigitl's peddling this nonsense is a little bit of a surprise.
Why don't you address the recentness of the 2008 deal instead of using ad homs to waste thread space?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, um... which part of that pipeline is connected to the Persian Gulf again? Oh, that's right: none of it. It doesn't go near the Persian Gulf.I did not make that claim.



Indeed it is. Note US involvement ended in 1998. We are not part of any of the plans since then, none of which have progressed anywhere, and none of which are likely to any time soon.I don't know which international companies will eventually be involved in the pipeline if it is ever built but I'll be very surprised if they don't have ties to the US.



Hardly alive either.I don't know where the deal sits at the moment. Perhaps you have a source that might inform us?

[Ziggurat]

And how, pray tell, does a land-locked country control access to the Persian Gulf?

You're right: I have no clue about what possible reason you could think Afghanistan controlled access to the Persian Gulf.

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Route (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline)

Yeah, um... which part of that pipeline is connected to the Persian Gulf again? Oh, that's right: none of it. It doesn't go near the Persian Gulf.

I did not make that claim.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that when you quoted me previously, your response would have some relevance to the question I had asked in that quote. My mistake, I apologize. I will try to avoid assuming that your responses have any connection to the posts you respond to.

[Pardalis]

Why don't you address the recentness of the 2008 deal instead of using ad homs to waste thread space?

You mean the deal in which America is not a part of?

I don't know which international companies will eventually be involved in the pipeline if it is ever built but I'll be very surprised if they don't have ties to the US.

[...]
I don't know where the deal sits at the moment.

As I said, your contributions to the thread so far is trolling.

You jumped in the discussion about the non-existing pipeline, to prove something against Bush, or something, allinging yourself with a truther in the process, and all this without even knowing what you were talking about.

Great.

[Tricky]

I've split this derail about (among other things) US Military bases and the Afghan pipeline into it's own thread. Please position your... er... positions in the appropriate thread.

[Darth Rotor]

Gawd, what a load of myopic sillies we have in this thread.

The opium crop is the Afghan government's version of Bush's converting corn into a major source of energy. Opium Ethanol is the next great energy gold mine. The US wants to have its soldiers there to ensure BushObamaClinton all get filthy rich, and Haliburton gets no percentage on the deal. Oh, but damnit, JihadJane figured it all out, and the cat's out of the bag with the White Horse.

Curses, foiled again. :p

For the love of all that is heroin, will the madness ever stop, Jihad Jane?

I mean yours.

DR

[Pardalis]

One need not be a CTer to recognize Bush favored an oil producing country for invasionAfghanistan is an oil producing country now?

and the Afghan pipeline is hardly a figment of some loose change fiction.First of all it's a natural gas pipeline project, and as a project it stalled, got canceled and now seems to not involve the US at all.

So the point was what? Bush invaded Afghanistan because of some gas pipeline that never got built? Obama seems to want to get more military emphasis on Afghanistan, are you saying he's after the pipeline too?

[tyr_13]

All your answers so far have been tautological. I'll assume from your resort to speculative ad homs that you have no idea why the US needs 700+ military outposts.



The bases all have different reasons for existing, many going back to WWII. The one's you're complaining about have that entire Taliban/Al Quadia/ warring nuclear power thing going on.

But I had no speculative ad hom. Thanks for proving the that the speculation I did have was valid.

[JihadJane]

Gawd, what a load of myopic sillies we have in this thread.

The opium crop is the Afghan government's version of Bush's converting corn into a major source of energy. Opium Ethanol is the next great energy gold mine. The US wants to have its soldiers there to ensure BushObamaClinton all get filthy rich, and Haliburton gets no percentage on the deal. Oh, but damnit, JihadJane figured it all out, and the cat's out of the bag with the White Horse.

Curses, foiled again. :p

For the love of all that is heroin, will the madness ever stop, Jihad Jane?

I mean yours.

DR



Isn't it fun making up silly stories ( yours, I mean :rolleyes:)?

Drug money provides vital liquidity to the teetering Western banking system e.g.:

'UN crime chief says drug money flowed into banks

" The United Nations' crime and drug watchdog has indications that money made in illicit drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat in the global financial crisis, its head was quoted as saying on Sunday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLP65079620090125


The bases all have different reasons for existing, many going back to WWII. The one's you're complaining about have that entire Taliban/Al Quadia/ warring nuclear power thing going on.

But I had no speculative ad hom. Thanks for proving the that the speculation I did have was valid.


World War Two enabled the US to take up the mantle of world empire dropped by the war-bankrupted British.

I was talking about the global network of military bases that protects US imperial interests not "complaining" about those specifically related to the Persian Gulf/Caspian Basin Energy wars.

[funk de fino]

Isn't it fun making up silly stories ( yours, I mean :rolleyes:)?

Why dont you ask your hero Ruppert and his conmen sources?

[Quad4_72]

Why are people arguing about a non existent gas pipeline? Also, why are posters suggesting that Afghanistan is an oil producing country? Those making the claims, explain yourselves.

[tyr_13]

World War Two enabled the US to take up the mantle of world empire dropped by the war-bankrupted British.

I was talking about the global network of military bases that protects US imperial interests not "complaining" about those specifically related to the Persian Gulf/Caspian Basin Energy wars.

I hate to ask, but, evidence? The presence of the bases is not evidence of imperialism. Your claim of 'Energy wars' lacks evidence as well.

You keep making claims and then asking others to either disprove or come up with alternatives that you then dismiss out of hand. You do your own work. No, op-ed pieces don't tend to count as evidence.

[JihadJane]

Why are people arguing about a non existent gas pipeline? Also, why are posters suggesting that Afghanistan is an oil producing country? Those making the claims, explain yourselves.


Note which posters have suggested that Afganistan is an oil-producing country.

(In fact, though not relevant to this discussion, it does produce a samll amount oil and natural gas, mostly for domestic consumption)



I hate to ask, but, evidence? The presence of the bases is not evidence of imperialism. Your claim of 'Energy wars' lacks evidence as well.

You keep making claims and then asking others to either disprove or come up with alternatives that you then dismiss out of hand. You do your own work. No, op-ed pieces don't tend to count as evidence.


That the US empire took off after WW2 is simple history.

To understand why the US ruling class is prosecuting energy wars you could start here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/614017



I think it's fair enough to ask those who deny the existence of the US empire why the US needs a global network of military bases. I look forward to your answer.

[Ziggurat]

'UN crime chief says drug money flowed into banks

"Profil said Costa declined to identify countries or banks which may have received drug money and gave no indication how much cash might be involved."

So in other words, this is basically hearsay. None of the relevant facts can actually be checked in any manner. But hey, at least that's a step up from your claims which are provably false, like Afghanistan being relevant to control of the Persian Gulf. Keep at it, Jane, and one day you might actually make an argument supported by evidence!

[dtugg]

That the US empire took off after WW2 is simple history.


Where exactly is the US empire? Empires have large territories. Can you point out any large territories governed by the US?

[Dr Adequate]

Where exactly is the US empire? Empires have large territories. Can you point out any large territories governed by the US? Technically ... the US.

[tomwaits]

Simply put, this pipeline nonsense is pure CT, and nonfalsifiable. If a pipeline is built, that means the US invaded Afghanistan for the pipeline. If there's no pipeline, that just proves that the US tried to get a pipeline but failed at it.

[Quad4_72]

I think it's fair enough to ask those who deny the existence of the US empire why the US needs a global network of military bases. I look forward to your answer.

Definition of empire:
A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

The US does not govern any of the territories to which it has military bases in. Just because a military base exists in another country does not mean that we have control over that country. Keep in mind that these countries could ask us to leave at any time.

Our reasoning for having these bases is tactical. Should the need arise for us to have a war with a country over seas, we already have bases in place to stage from. Why would these countries want us to have bases in their territory you might ask? Well its simple. Why wouldn't they want the most powerful military in the world there to defend them? On top of that, the areas surrounding military bases benefit economically. Hope that answers your question.

[ZouPrime]

I don't know which international companies will eventually be involved in the pipeline if it is ever built but I'll be very surprised if they don't have ties to the US.

That's it? That's the bottom argument? You would be "surprised" that no US company were involved, so it becomes an acceptable conspiracy?

What a joke. Are you people taking yourself seriously? Why not come back with actual evidences instead of crappy speculation?

[tyr_13]

That the US empire took off after WW2 is simple history.

No, this is untrue, and you don't know what an empire is. The US economic dominance has been called an empire, but the US doesn't rule these countries.


To understand why the US ruling class is prosecuting energy wars you could start here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/614017

Stan Goff, really? You call that scholarly work? I suggest you start here.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032



I think it's fair enough to ask those who deny the existence of the US empire why the US needs a global network of military bases. I look forward to your answer.

You've been given plenty of answers. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you've refuted them. Again, you make a claim of Empire and tell others to disprove it. You prove that these bases are being used to control the American 'Empire'.

[JihadJane]

Definition of empire:
A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

The US does not govern any of the territories to which it has military bases in. Just because a military base exists in another country does not mean that we have control over that country. Keep in mind that these countries could ask us to leave at any time.

That's one definition of an empire. Another is:

"a large industrial operation embracing many firms" - The Chambers Dictionary.

That's a good description of the US empire ( plus military back-up).

Our reasoning for having these bases is tactical. Should the need arise for us to have a war with a country over seas, we already have bases in place to stage from. Why would these countries want us to have bases in their territory you might ask? Well its simple. Why wouldn't they want the most powerful military in the world there to defend them? On top of that, the areas surrounding military bases benefit economically. Hope that answers your question.

I'm not sure, but I remember reading that military bases actually do little for local economies and may even damage them.

What would be the reason for having these wars? Can you give some examples of US military bases being used to defend their host country from attack?


"Profil said Costa declined to identify countries or banks which may have received drug money and gave no indication how much cash might be involved."

So in other words, this is basically hearsay. None of the relevant facts can actually be checked in any manner. But hey, at least that's a step up from your claims which are provably false, like Afghanistan being relevant to control of the Persian Gulf. Keep at it, Jane, and one day you might actually make an argument supported by evidence!

Strange how incurious you are.

Where did I say Afghanistan was relevant to controlling the Persian Gulf, gurat (not that it isn't)?

[Ziggurat]

Wh said Afghanistan was relevant to control of the Persian gulf?

You did. Shall we take a trip down memory lane?

The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be understood outside of the regional energy-resource context.
Yeah. I mean, just look at all the pipelines and oil wells we're building there.
You appear not to have consider the possibility that the US has, once again, failed to achieve it's geostrategic goals.
What goals? Building a pipeline through Afghanistan?
Controlling access to Persian Gulf and Caspian Basin energy resources.

[JihadJane]

No, this is untrue, and you don't know what an empire is. The US economic dominance has been called an empire, but the US doesn't rule these countries.

There are other kinds of empire besides direct, political rule.



Stan Goff, really? You call that scholarly work?

Yes. I hope you enjoy it.

I suggest you start here.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032

I assume you aren't claiming that this article is a scholary work!

The novice author has very superfical and short-term understanding of oil, its relationship to the dollar and the way that oil prices are manipulated. The latter is a big factor in what gives Saudi Arabia and Iraq their importance as oil producers. (Recently, the elasticity of Saudi oil production has come into question, sparking speculation that it's production is going into decline).




You've been given plenty of answers. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you've refuted them. Again, you make a claim of Empire and tell others to disprove it. You prove that these bases are being used to control the American 'Empire'.

I have been given some answers, nothing much, and nothing substantial from you at all. I don't perceive myself as making a "claim" about the existence of the US Empire any more than you would see it as a "claim" were you to assert that dogs have four legs.

[JihadJane]

You did. Shall we take a trip down memory lane?


I was talking about the geostrategic goals of the ongoing US energy wars, not just the Afghanistan campaign.

[Pardalis]

There are other kinds of empire besides direct, political rule.

Such as?

[Ziggurat]

I was talking about the geostrategic goals of the ongoing US energy wars, not just the Afghanistan campaign.

And yet, you said that in regards to your statement specifically about Afghanistan.

[JihadJane]

And yet, you gave that answer in response to a question specifically about Afghanistan. You'll have to forgive me, I'm used to people's answers actually addressing my questions.


That's surprising. I'd have thought they'd be more likely simply to ignore them. ;)





The occupation of Afghanistan cannot be understood outside of the regional energy-resource context.

[Pardalis]

You kind of proved Zig's point by quoting yourself. You were talking about Afghanistan.

[D'rok]

I was talking about the geostrategic goals of the ongoing US energy wars, not just the Afghanistan campaign.

OK, so your claim is that there are "ongoing US energy wars" (plural - i.e., more than one) and Afghanistan is a campaign in one of those wars.

So spell it out for us. What are these wars? Where are they? Who are the combatants?

[tyr_13]

There are other kinds of empire besides direct, political rule.

But the political one is the one that we are talking about, as that's the one that plays into your conspiracy theory about military bases all over the world.



Yes. I hope you enjoy it.

I'm not paying $23 for it, sorry.



I assume you aren't claiming that this article is a scholary work!

The novice author has very superfical and short-term understanding of oil, its relationship to the dollar and the way that oil prices are manipulated. The latter is a big factor in what gives Saudi Arabia and Iraq their importance as oil producers. (Recently, the elasticity of Saudi oil production has come into question, sparking speculation that it's production is going into decline).



Novice author? Right....
Iraq still doesn't have much of an impact on prices of oil. Afghanistan even less so.




I have been given some answers, nothing much, and nothing substantial from you at all. I don't perceive myself as making a "claim" about the existence of the US Empire any more than you would see it as a "claim" were you to assert that dogs have four legs.

You accuse me of a tautology yet make the silly claim that the US Empire is as self evident as dogs having four legs? You have speculation and insinuation, no evidence. What are these bases doing that support your claim of empire? Their existence isn't evidence.

[D'rok]

The imperial nature of the US is debatable, but it is a little disingenuous to dismiss garrisoning the entire planet as something other than the completely unprecedented projection of military power that it plainly is. Empire? Maybe not. But it ain't exactly benign either. In fact, it is one of the strategies for republican empire discussed by Machiavelli in his Discourses. (Put the legions in strategically located garrisons. Let the region rule itself. Only emerge from behind the walls of the garrison when some pressing demand for overwhelming force in the interests of Rome is necessary in the region.)

Some (including the likely next PM of Canada) have called it "empire lite":

America's empire is not like empires of times past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man's burden. We are no longer in the era of the United Fruit Company, when American corporations needed the Marines to secure their investments overseas. The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known. It is the imperialism of a people who remember that their country secured its independence by revolt against an empire, and who like to think of themselves as the friend of freedom everywhere. It is an empire without consciousness of itself as such, constantly shocked that its good intentions arouse resentment abroad. But that does not make it any less of an empire, with a conviction that it alone, in Herman Melville's words, bears "the ark of the liberties of the world.

http://empirelite.ca/

[Ziggurat]

The imperial nature of the US is debatable, but it is a little disingenuous to dismiss garrisoning the entire planet as something other than the completely unprecedented projection of military power that it plainly is.

Yes, it is unprecedented. When British reach was global, it maintained that reach with colonies. When Rome's reach spanned the western world, it conquered all in its path. Never before has the world's most dominant power established itself as a hegemony instead of an empire. It is not our projection of military power which is unprecedented, it is the fact that we do so without using it to exert political control wherever we go.

[funk de fino]

I'm not sure, but I remember reading that military bases actually do little for local economies and may even damage them.

Too funny.

[funk de fino]

The novice author has very superfical and short-term understanding of oil, its relationship to the dollar and the way that oil prices are manipulated. The latter is a big factor in what gives Saudi Arabia and Iraq their importance as oil producers. (Recently, the elasticity of Saudi oil production has come into question, sparking speculation that it's production is going into decline).

And your novice google fu and Ruppert junk is even worse. You are clueless when it comes to energy.

[dudalb]

It's just part of JJ's general hatred for modern industrial society.

[Praktik]

The imperial nature of the US is debatable, but it is a little disingenuous to dismiss garrisoning the entire planet as something other than the completely unprecedented projection of military power that it plainly is. Empire? Maybe not. But it ain't exactly benign either. In fact, it is one of the strategies for republican empire discussed by Machiavelli in his Discourses. (Put the legions in strategically located garrisons. Let the region rule itself. Only emerge from behind the walls of the garrison when some pressing demand for overwhelming force in the interests of Rome is necessary in the region.)

Some (including the likely next PM of Canada) have called it "empire lite":

nice post. I think the biggest problem is that the term "empire" is out-dated, and largely irrelevant to our modern world. So people who don't like the idea of America being called an "empire" will push back against it and point out, factually, that America isn't taking direct control of the nations it influences, that it has no colonies, that citizenship isn't being given to Iraqis or Afghanis or Vietnamese when they were militarily involved in those places.

That's certainly true. But at the same time, the unprecedented economic and military power of America means it also doesn't really have to do those things, which can end up pretty messily over the years. Britain's biggest problems in India came when they moved on from a period of relatively peaceful coexistence and mutual respect with Indian culture to a relationship designed to make them more British.

Never before has the world's most dominant power established itself as a hegemony instead of an empire. It is not our projection of military power which is unprecedented, it is the fact that we do so without using it to exert political control wherever we go.

Well, I'm not sure I can agree with this. Why are Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau frequently the only additional nations (along with the US and Israel) voting in the American/Israeli interest at the UN? What dog do they have in that fight? Maintaining good relations with their American benefactors.

We can look at trade relations and the way American clout is used to open up foreign markets and keep them open, the way "friendlies" in nations like Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Argentina, Greece and many others have had profitable relationships with American power - part of a system of indirect control.

We can look at the ICJ and the World Court and the ways in which smaller nations around the world were cajoled and threatened into accepting America's position on these institutions.

Now - I'm not trying to make a value judgment here, though underneath I guess I'd prefer a world where smaller/weaker nations were more free to pursue their own course without outside influence, fact is any country in America's position would at the very least be exercising the same kind of political control, or at the worst, a more overt kind of control. Its a fact of nature - the head of the pack gets first bite on the kill.

But to say that America doesn't use its influence to exercise political control is really just innacurate - and it would be like seeing a dropped stone fall upwards to see a nation in its position refrain from the temptation of taking advantage of its power.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We're all going to look back at this stuff and laugh once we've fully converted to nuclear power.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I'm not sure, but I remember reading that military bases actually do little for local economies and may even damage them.


Nope. I've seen what happens when the Military base closes and the local economy dive bombs.