War is peace

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 7556
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

NEUTRINOLAD

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:17 AM

Some ground rules would be good, GHeezer.
I'll think about how to phrase it and create a new thread.

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- It's back to work for me so I'll get back with you later.

Hey, SignyM! I finally found out why we have so many military bases in foreign countries. They ask us to put them there!

Romanians Pitch Rumsfeld on Base Location
Updated: Monday, Oct. 11, 2004 - 9:24 PM

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

CONSTANTA, Romania (AP) - One day after visiting Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld toured a spruced-up military base here Monday and heard a Romanian government sales pitch for making it a new American outpost within easy reach of potential hot spots in the Middle East and Central Asia.

http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=296735

Glad we don't have to worry about that issue any more.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Here is some locals and troops numbers you may find of interest.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1004-05.htm

Have you considered why the US had so many troops in Saudi Arabia post Desert Storms ?

Up front it was to protect the Kingdom from Iraq... but not only was Iraq beat to crap, but a huge majority of those troops were not based on the border in a defensive posture...

They were based in and near all of Saudi Arabias main cities...

Now this does not make sense to me as not only does that inflame much of the public there ( as foreign worker usually had their own compounds well out of town ) but also provided serious security issues as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/29/saudi.wrap/

Now I wonder, were they there to keep the Saudi government in line... or even more likely to provide support in the event of a coup attempt or a popular uprising against the house of Saud.

And this sort of interference has made the US loved around the world.....

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

This might be interesting if your info about US strength in Saudi Arabia was up to date. According to Globalsecurity.org, the US moved all but about 500 troops out of Saudi Arabia in mid-2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

Those must be 500 supertroopers if they expect to take over the country. I'd guess that they're there more as liaison with the Saudi military.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

UNCHARTEDOUTLAW

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:47 PM

Nice. One more example I can use with my 10th graders as I get ready to teach 1984 to them. :)

-Taylor

Uncharted Outlaw!

Haulin' goods from one end of creation to th' other. Keepin' my nose clean 'round the Alliance. Rockin' the "Riviera" (67-K62) hardcore!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:56 PM

Geezer, are you trying to say that Prince Sultan AFB was a small-time operation and was/ is irrelevant to the Saudi government and the region? According to the team that dismantled PSAFB they removed:

- the largest contingency power plants in AF hx
- a major water distribution systems.
- three major fuel storage and distribution areas
- the largest contingency fuels farms in the AF
- 1,000 drums of hazardous waste
— 180 tents and 12 general purpose shelters

They also cleaned and inspected more than 1,200 base facilities.
http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/Dec/1223-03.
htm

PSAFB housed about 4,500 troops and had:

4,257-bed facility
three community dining halls
a gymnasium
recreation center
library
pool

The 4,000-5,000 troops were redeployed to neighboring Qatar.

In addition, about 17 bases are being built in Iraq, at least one is being built in Uzbekistan (very quietly) and one is Kyrzygstan (also quietly).

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, are you trying to say that Prince Sultan AFB was a small-time operation and was/ is irrelevant to the Saudi government and the region? According to the team that dismantled PSAFB they removed:

- the largest contingency power plants in AF hx
- a major water distribution systems.
- three major fuel storage and distribution areas
- the largest contingency fuels farms in the AF
- 1,000 drums of hazardous waste
— 180 tents and 12 general purpose shelters

They also cleaned and inspected more than 1,200 base facilities.
http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/Dec/1223-03.
htm

PSAFB housed about 4,500 troops and had:

4,257-bed facility
three community dining halls
a gymnasium
recreation center
library
pool

The 4,000-5,000 troops were redeployed to neighboring Qatar.

In addition, about 17 bases are being built in Iraq, at least one is being built in Uzbekistan (very quietly) and one is Kyrzygstan (also quietly).

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that 500 or 5000 or 500,000 US troops in Saudi Arabia would be any threat to Saudi Arabia, nor are the US troops in Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, or the various -stans threats to those countries. We're generally there at their invitation (OK, Except Iraq and Afghanistan). Kuwait likes us so much they just built us a $200 million dollar installation, Camp Arifjan, to replace the rundown Gulf War I facilities. As noted earlier in the thread, Romania is actively seeking US bases. the American presence in Afghanistan has allowed them to conduct the first relatively democratic election in their history.

GlobalSecurity.net
http://globalsecurity.org/military/facility/centcom.htm
mentions installations in Uzbekistan and Kyrzygstan, and you seem to know about them, so it's not all that quiet, I guess. Doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that requires a banner headline in the Post.

Not surprised we're building facilities in Iraq, because whatever happens in the US Presidential election, we are going to be there for a while, and will need somewhere for our troops to stay. There's no way we could just up and pull out. It would be political suicide for whoever suggested it, and his party as well. A significant presence will be necessary until Iraqi forces can get trained up to support a legitimate government. Kerry says four years, Bush says until it's done. We'll still need bases for either scenario.

You apparently think that the only reason we have bases overseas is to take over the world. I don't agree with this. I'm afraid I actually see the very idea as kind of silly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

This might be interesting if your info about US strength in Saudi Arabia was up to date. According to Globalsecurity.org, the US moved all but about 500 troops out of Saudi Arabia in mid-2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

Those must be 500 supertroopers if they expect to take over the country. I'd guess that they're there more as liaison with the Saudi military.

Yes, the information was dated. That kinda was the point. I'll try to be more clear:

One of the reasons al-Qaeda declared its jihad against the US was the fact that US troops were based in Arabia.

Exiled Pro-Democracy dissidents voice their objections - Dr Saad al Fagih " I don't think there is a sensible person who belives that the Americans should stay in Saudi Arabia "

the deputy PM of Yemen " The US military forces are neither liked or appreciated "

The British Ambassador " the American presence in Saudia is clumsy, provocative, and counter productive "

Now as I said before, the deployments of personnel were

A) Not in Defensive positions on the border.

B) Not deployed to train Saudi Forces

C) Deployed in or just outside every major city

Now what was the utility of this, the troops involved were exposed to a hostile local population, for what reason ?

Deploying away from the citys, perhaps on the coastal roads away from built up area would have prevented the khobar towers bombing etc, as well as possibly being less provocative to the locals... but no, so I submise there was a reason. Perhaps to block a change in government, that while even if having popular support the US would try to knock down in order to protect its own interests.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Intere
st_2004_01_16.htm

Now as this was one of three reasons for this Jihad in the first place, the reasons behind the actions leading in are definately relevant.

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

GEEZER

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

This might be interesting if your info about US strength in Saudi Arabia was up to date. According to Globalsecurity.org, the US moved all but about 500 troops out of Saudi Arabia in mid-2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

Those must be 500 supertroopers if they expect to take over the country. I'd guess that they're there more as liaison with the Saudi military.

Yes, the information was dated. That kinda was the point. I'll try to be more clear:

One of the reasons al-Qaeda declared its jihad against the US was the fact that US troops were based in Arabia.

Exiled Pro-Democracy dissidents voice their objections - Dr Saad al Fagih " I don't think there is a sensible person who belives that the Americans should stay in Saudi Arabia "

the deputy PM of Yemen " The US military forces are neither liked or appreciated "

The British Ambassador " the American presence in Saudia is clumsy, provocative, and counter productive "

Now as I said before, the deployments of personnel were

A) Not in Defensive positions on the border.

B) Not deployed to train Saudi Forces

C) Deployed in or just outside every major city

Now what was the utility of this, the troops involved were exposed to a hostile local population, for what reason ?

Deploying away from the citys, perhaps on the coastal roads away from built up area would have prevented the khobar towers bombing etc, as well as possibly being less provocative to the locals... but no, so I submise there was a reason. Perhaps to block a change in government, that while even if having popular support the US would try to knock down in order to protect its own interests.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Intere
st_2004_01_16.htm

Now as this was one of three reasons for this Jihad in the first place, the reasons behind the actions leading in are definately relevant.

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

I'm sorry, but the fact that you believe anything that al-Qaeda uses as justification for terrorism leads me to believe that I cannot take you seriously at all. I will not be responding to any future posts from you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:59 AM

We had such a ripe opportunity after 9/11 to truly make the world a safer place. With the outpouring of sympathy and support from all across the globe we could have really presented a united front against terrorism. Instead we've alienate most of the world and provided endless recruitment fodder for Al-Queda. Osama is still out there.

It's truly sad to see how Bush has pissed it all away.

Oh well, at least we have lots of new military bases in Iraq to defend all the oil.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:22 AM

Perhaps that is the true tragedy,

If you cannot look at your own countrys action with a grain of salt, then I suppose peace isn't really possible.

That leaves us with either you'll win or you'll lose...

And at the rate your making friends around the world, eventually you will lose... and not even bothering to understand the problem... and that is sad

terrorism often has strong roots in the people on the recieving end, some of the actions of the British in Ireland for the past two hundred years, or more recently the Chechnyans. While their attack on the school in Beslan should be condemned nobody seems to remember the Russians bombing %95 of Grozny into the ground, a city of 1.5 million people. That action should have been condemned then as it should now.

Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing how a supporter of American foreign policy answered up to the accusations that al-Qaeda made before this war started, and to see how you felt about incidents where the United States promoted Terrorism.

I am sorry you do not feel up to that challange and your country policies are apparently not up to that sort of scrutiny.

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE