New US Bases just opened.

[a_unique_person]

Ever heard of Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan?

They are the new friends of the US, are run by authoritarian, despotic dictators, and have access to Caspian Sea oil. Three them will have the pleasure of hosting shiny, new US bases.

All have repressed Muslim populations just crying out for Osama Bin Laden to free them from their rulers and their rulers friends.

[Tony]

do you have a source?

[Doubt]

And the US bases in Saudi Arabia are being closed. But you would never mention that since it would not make the US look bad. Get a life.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt
And the US bases in Saudi Arabia are being closed. But you would never mention that since it would not make the US look bad. Get a life.

Well, the Saudi ones are being moved to Iraq. This is a whole new 'sphere of influence'.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, the Saudi ones are being moved to Iraq. This is a whole new 'sphere of influence'.

why is that a bad thing?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
do you have a source?

The source I have is print only.

[Gregor]

glad to hear it

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


why is that a bad thing?

Lets see, from history, the US should have learned by now.

Propping up brutal dictators, especially against Muslims, is not a good thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The source I have is print only.

then tell me more about the governments of Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Doubt
And the US bases in Saudi Arabia are being closed. But you would never mention that since it would not make the US look bad. Get a life.
there is a thread about this
Here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18502)

And it make the US look bad.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Lets see, from history, the US should have learned by now.

Propping up brutal dictators, especially against Muslims, is not a good thing.

You have a gift for throwing out random, arbitrary comments. What does this have to do with the fact that the bases are being moved to Iraq and (as you said) the whole new 'sphere of influence'?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


You have a gift for throwing out random, arbitrary comments. What does this have to do with the fact that the bases are being moved to Iraq and (as you said) the whole new 'sphere of influence'?

The Saudi base is being moved to Iraq. The new bases are in the Ex USSR.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The Saudi base is being moved to Iraq. The new bases are in the Ex USSR.

so? What is your point?

[Skeptic]

Propping up brutal dictators, especially against Muslims, is not a good thing.

Yes, we all know how the Muslims just HATE dictators...

[Michael Redman]

The Saudi operations are being moved to Qatar, with a much less opressive regime than in Saudi, and the "new" bases are not that new, they were built to support the attack on Afghanistan, not because of proximity to Caspian oil.

[corplinx]

'sphere of influence'? nice way to imply that were imperialists AUP.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The Saudi operations are being moved to Qatar, with a much less opressive regime than in Saudi, and the "new" bases are not that new, they were built to support the attack on Afghanistan, not because of proximity to Caspian oil.

Don't confuse AUP with facts. Surely you know that just locating on the map some natural resource (oil, gold, etc.) within 500 miles of any US base is enough "proof" for AUP and other "blame America for everything" idiots that the resource is the "real reason" for the creation of the base.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

there is a thread about this
Here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18502)

And it make the US look bad.

It does?

[zakur]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Propping up brutal dictators, especially against Muslims, is not a good thing.

Yes, we all know how the Muslims just HATE dictators... "Better to live forty years under tyranny than one day in leaderless chaos." —Arab proverb

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
'sphere of influence'? nice way to imply that were imperialists AUP.

You don't think that occupying and opening US bases in Iraq is imperialism? I wish I had your trust for America and its intentions.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Don't confuse AUP with facts. Surely you know that just locating on the map some natural resource (oil, gold, etc.) within 500 miles of any US base is enough "proof" for AUP and other "blame America for everything" idiots that the resource is the "real reason" for the creation of the base.

Show me the real reason for the creation of these bases then. You need not worry about confusing me with your facts.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by zakur
"Better to live forty years under tyranny than one day in leaderless chaos." —Arab proverb

"Live Free or Die"-- American proverb.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

[zakur]

Originally posted by Skeptic


"Live Free or Die"-- American proverb.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? That it does.

[Skeptic]

Show me the real reason for the creation of these bases then. You need not worry about confusing me with your facts.

Oh, dear.

AUP was the one making the claim that the "real reason" for these new bases is caspian oil. HE is making the claim, HE needs to prove it.

I don't have to prove him wrong by giving some other reason for the bases being there. HE needs to proves himself RIGHT by showing that oil IS the reason.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Propping up brutal dictators, especially against Muslims, is not a good thing.

Yes, we all know how the Muslims just HATE dictators...

Well, they hated the Shah of Iran. Arafat had to quell dissent in the ranks. Iran has moves to try to make it more liberal. Saddam was not popular with his own people. The Bosnians wanted independence from the Serbs. There has been an internal power struggle in Malaya, with a moderate Muslim imprisoned by the Prime Minister, Indonesia recently kicked out Suharto.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/base-j11.shtml

A link to a different article, from the (gasp) socialists, but it appears to be pretty down to earth. Big bases, being built. Now, what is their purpose? The war in Afghanistan is over, isn't it?

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/base-j11.shtml

A link to a different article, from the (gasp) socialists, but it appears to be pretty down to earth. Big bases, being built. Now, what is their purpose? The war in Afghanistan is over, isn't it?

World Socialist Web Site?
All wait to get an actual news link on the story to make up my mind on the topic.
You seem to be making it sound like an invasion by the US until we are free of terrorist we need to keep a military presents there.

[a_unique_person]

Central Asia: U.S. Military Buildup Shifts Spheres Of Influence
By Jean-Christophe Peuch

Even though the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan appears to be drawing to a close, Washington is building up its military presence in Central Asia to protect what it describes as its long-term interests, in an area Russia and China consider part of their sphere of influence. The move could have dramatic consequences in a region in which some countries are seeking to reduce their dependence on Russia for security reasons.

Prague, 11 January 2002 (RFE/RL) -- The United States, which has gained a foothold in Central Asia over the course of its antiterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, is now considering ways to consolidate its military buildup there in a bid to raise its political profile in the region.

The move is likely to prompt much gnashing of teeth in Russia and China, as the two nations traditionally regard Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan as their backyard.

Since the beginning of the U.S. offensive against Afghanistan's Taliban militia and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terrorist network, the Pentagon and its allies have been using Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan as a rear base for military operations and as a corridor for humanitarian aid.

Kazakhstan and Tajikistan have no Western troops on their territories, but they have offered their respective airspaces and airfields to U.S. planes for operations in Afghanistan. Allied military experts are currently inspecting Tajik airfields in anticipation of future missions in the region.

Some 2,000 U.S. soldiers are already deployed in former Soviet Central Asia, mainly on Uzbekistan's southern Khanabad airfield, near the Afghan border. On 28 December, Uzbek President Islam Karimov said he has set no deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of the base.

Although the U.S.-led anti-Taliban operation appears near its end, the Pentagon is building military facilities at Manas international airport -- some 30 kilometers outside the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek -- which could house up to 3,000 troops. And the Kyrgyz parliament last month agreed to let the U.S. military set up a base at Manas for one year.




http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/01/11012002091651.asp

The bases are growing, as the Afghan war is closing.



Political landscape redrawn
By Mushahid Hussain

ISLAMABAD - Although Afghanistan has been the center of gravity in the US-led war on terror since September 11, the countries in its vicinity have also witnessed profound changes in the past year.

These changes - relationships that have shifted considerably, previously held perceptions that have undergone radical change and new policies that have been introduced - have woven together a pattern of several "firsts". These new realities were virtually unthinkable a year ago.

First, for the first time since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, a clear de facto convergence of interests formed between Tehran and Washington in their shared objective of covertly collaborating to oust their common enemy, the Taliban.

Second, prior to September 11, not one US soldier was based in Central Asia, but now the US has set up military bases in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. In doing so, it has moved into a new neighborhood where the big players are Russia, China and Iran. And third, India has for the first time established a military base in Tajikistan, close to the border with Afghanistan.

Fourth, China and Russia, in a shift of positions based on realpolitik and their national interests, have quietly acquiesced to the build-up of a US military presence close to their borders. Meanwhile, Washington, in a reversal of past policy, officially declared the Muslim dissidents in Chechnya and Xinjiang terrorist organizations. During his visit to Beijing in late August, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage designated the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) a terrorist group.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DI11Ag01.html



At Bishkek's Manas Airport, Marat could only shake his head as he watched an Air Force C-130 cargo plane thunder down the runway. A university student and Bishkek resident with Russian and Ukrainian parents, Marat was shocked to see American soldiers occupying the main terminal's top floor and neighboring buildings. Across the street from the terminal, hundreds of Gls were diligently constructing a vast new complex of buildings and sheds. As he peered through a fence, Marat said that until now he had considered talk of American imperialism just to be Communist propaganda. Yet the next day, Marat and his friends went to U.S. military headquarters at the Hyatt Regency and applied for jobs.

Before the war in Afghanistan, few Americans had ever heard of Kyrgyzstan-or the other new Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which all now figure prominently in America's foreign policy plans. The State Department and Pentagon have quietly cobbled together a bold strategy for American military expansion into this region, building military facilities in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and staking claim to a land of deserts, vast steppe and towering mountain ranges along the ancient Silk Road, where no Western country has ever stationed troops before.

The five Central Asian countries, which comprise an area about half the size of the continental United States, have been part of a Russian sphere of influence since the 19th century. Most Russians still consider these countries on Russia's southern border, and the millions of ethnic Russians who live there, as essential to Russian interests. China also views the prospect of permanent American air bases with alarm. What's more, not only is the region rife with religious and ethnic tensions, but all five countries have authoritarian governments responsible for well-documented human rights abuses. Yet neither the billions of dollars that may be spent here nor the risks of antagonizing the neighboring nuclear powers have attracted much critical attention from the U.S. media.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Permanent_Installation.html

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The Saudi operations are being moved to Qatar, with a much less opressive regime than in Saudi, and the "new" bases are not that new, they were built to support the attack on Afghanistan, not because of proximity to Caspian oil.
Thank you Michael. Someone also made a comment on another thread that we were moving out of Saudi Arabia due to demands from Bin Laden. We started scouting around for new sites long ago, long before 9/11 entered anyone's lexion. Dealing with the Saudi's is a total pain in the *ss. Even the other countries in the middle east don't like them.
Qatar wants us there, and even built a nice new runway to tempt us. This sucker is so bit, we can't figure out where they got all the concete. But you can definitely land B1s there. Head on. And still have space left over. When these guys build a runway, they build a runway.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The Saudi operations are being moved to Qatar, with a much less opressive regime than in Saudi, and the "new" bases are not that new, they were built to support the attack on Afghanistan, not because of proximity to Caspian oil.

OK, so the Qatar bases are the old Saudi ones, and there are new ones in Iraq, and Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The US is expanding these bases, even thought the pretext of the Afghan war is over.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


OK, so the Qatar bases are the old Saudi ones, and there are new ones in Iraq, and Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The US is expanding these bases, even thought the pretext of the Afghan war is over.

Could you please get to the point in your opinion what is the US really trying to do?

[a_unique_person]

Didn't know this site existed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/al-udeid_dg-20_s.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/al-udeid_dg-5_s.jpg

Qatar base with planes on ground.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Didn't know this site existed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm
Qatar base with planes on ground.

And your point is?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Could you please get to the point in your opinion what is the US really trying to do?

To quote Corplinx



'sphere of influence'? nice way to imply that were imperialists AUP.



The US is just expanding it's empire. It is risking more 'blowback' from persisting in interfering in parts of the world that have nothing to do with it.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


To quote Corplinx



The US is just expanding it's empire. It is risking more 'blowback' from persisting in interfering in parts of the world that have nothing to do with it.

I see its just expanding its over all plan with the Zionist to control the world.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I see its just expanding its over all plan with the Zionist to control the world.

The question is, why? From reading around, the US appears to have a pretty keen interest in this area, and is building bases and putting armed forces in there. The number of US bases in the world appears to be growing, not reducing.

In this case, Oil seems to be another good guess. It appears that WMD or concern for the Iraqi people wasn't at the core of the recent war.

Or is it just that the US armed forces want to keep growing. There has to be a good career plan in place for all those up and coming generals. Only, the rest of the world has to put up with having a foreign army on it's soil.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Ever heard of Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan?

They are the new friends of the US, are run by authoritarian, despotic dictators, and have access to Caspian Sea oil. Three them will have the pleasure of hosting shiny, new US bases.

All have repressed Muslim populations just crying out for Osama Bin Laden to free them from their rulers and their rulers friends.

Aint it great for the US to select these countries for their mighty oil reserves that are estimated to be around 7.7 billion barrels, when the greedy oil company owned leadership could just decide to invade a country like Algeria and net oil reserves of 9.2-17 billion barrels and not even risk a diplomatic conflict with Russia.

World oil reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Trollbane


Aint it great for the US to select these countries for their mighty oil reserves that are estimated to be around 7.7 billion barrels, when the greedy oil company owned leadership could just decide to invade a country like Algeria and net oil reserves of 9.2-17 billion barrels and not even risk a diplomatic conflict with Russia.

World oil reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html)

Your trying to tell me no one else has an interest in the Meditteranean area of the world, and that Algeria isn't a few stops from the Middle East. For one thing, I think France views Algeria as it's playground. The 'stans are pretty much a power vacuum at the moment. I suppose the US sees it as a case of 'first in, best dressed'.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Your trying to tell me no one else has an interest in the Meditteranean area of the world, and that Algeria isn't a few stops from the Middle East. For one thing, I think France views Algeria as it's playground. The 'stans are pretty much a power vacuum at the moment. I suppose the US sees it as a case of 'first in, best dressed'.

What I am trying to point out is that the Caspian sea oil what you said to be the reason for these bases just isnt worth it. I would look for a reason of the bases from the strategic locations of the countries if the USA decides to attack Iran.. Not to mention nice locations for bases incase of future power struggles with China.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Show me the real reason for the creation of these bases then. You need not worry about confusing me with your facts.

Oh, dear.

AUP was the one making the claim that the "real reason" for these new bases is caspian oil. HE is making the claim, HE needs to prove it.

I don't have to prove him wrong by giving some other reason for the bases being there. HE needs to proves himself RIGHT by showing that oil IS the reason.

So are you saying there is no reason for these bases? They are maybe just to give Ft Worth soldiers an overseas holiday?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
. . . there are new ones in Iraq, . . . You are aware of the military action in Iraq, right? Lots of soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. operating in the country? Do you expect them to retreat to Kuwait every evening? Of course they have built bases. Will they keep them after an Iraqi government takes over? How could you possible have that answer?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You are aware of the military action in Iraq, right? Lots of soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. operating in the country? Do you expect them to retreat to Kuwait every evening? Of course they have built bases. Will they keep them after an Iraqi government takes over? How could you possible have that answer?

Going on past form, with Japan, Germany, Italy for example, those bases will be there for many years to come.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Going on past form, with Japan, Germany, Italy for example, those bases will be there for many years to come.
Not quite: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/21/sprj.nitop.pentagon/index.html)
"The impression that's left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it's flat false," Rumsfeld said at Monday's Pentagon briefing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

Not quite: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/21/sprj.nitop.pentagon/index.html)


This thread is about the bases in the 'stans. The Iraqi bases, well how long is a piece of string, and how long is the long term. With the new base in Qatar, (never heard of this before, where do they all come from?), the bases in Iraq may not be necessary.

[Mr Manifesto]

I have a good book here called "The New Rulers Of The World" by John Pilger. It is worth reading. Here is a quote from it:

There are many blueprints for the new imperialism, but none as cogent as that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to several presidents and one of the most influential gurus in Washington, whose 1997 book is said to have biblical authority among the Bush gang and its intelligensia. In The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Brzezinski writes, 'Ever since the continents started interacting politcally, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power'. (cited)
He defines Eurasia as all the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean and including the Middle East and most of the Indian sub-continent. The key to controlling this vast area of the world is Central Asia. Dominance of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Krygyzstan ensures not only new sources of energy and mineral wealth, but a 'guardpost' over American control of the oil of the Persian Gulf. (citation)

John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World, London: Vesro Books, 2002, pgs 112-113

So perhaps in future American school children will be able to point to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Krygyzstan on a map when American 'discovers' there are terrorists based there?

----
edit

to add 'on a map'