It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New US-led Asia-Pacific peacekeeping force and security bloc to be established by 2008.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   


India in US military bloc by 2008

24 November 2004:

India will be part of an US-led Asia-Pacific peacekeeping force and security bloc to be established by 2008.

Conceived by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld three years ago but approved after the recent elections by the Congressional Research Service, it fits into his aim to modernise American forces by cutting costs and increasing effectiveness.

Diplomatic sources said prime minister Manmohan Singh was quite responsive, and the Indian armed forces believe it will bring new technology and tactics to their modernisation programme.

Nineteen countries will be initial members, and the leading ones are India, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgistan, South Korea, the Philippines, and New Zealand, followed by smaller states, which are yet to be accommodated, but have given their consent.

US armed forces will undergo a technology revolution by year 2020, and Europe sees the bloc as a “smart move” by America to preserve its hyperpower status, cutting down its own military strength, and having sway over forces from other allies.

China was shown the plan on a visit by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, but it remained unresponsive, and diplomats said India has expressed no reservation about being deployed in a possible peacekeeping role alongwith Pakistan, because the US is said to have taken guarantees for its “good behaviour”.


www.newsinsight.net...

This is rather interesting. This would serve to bracket Iran and China even more. I wouldn't be surprised if Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are on the list, and possibly Thailand.

Is the US sending a message to NATO?




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
How would this be sending a message to NATO?

Do you mean in that we are pulling our troops out of their countries to put them in Asia?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   
AMM, don't make me do all your thinking for you...


How much help has NATO been for the US in Iraq? What did Turkey do to help? France? Germany?

Of course we are going to draw down Europe, SouK, and Japan, we've already announced that. And yes, we will be building small forward bases in central asia and the former Soviet states. Virtually all of them are pro-US after the treatment they received under the Soviets from the 50's through the 80's. We already have bases in several of these countries today.

Look at the list of countries, and a map. Consider the position of Iran and China, and try to figure out what the other 6 or so countries in the new alliance might be, and how that affects those 2 countries.

Then consider the timeframe, 2008. That is a very significant year, expecially for China. Nothing major will happen before then.

There is a very important strategic shift taking place...I'm surprised it's going unnoticed.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   


I understand exactly the kind of containment policy we seem to be employing here, I just don't see what kind of message we are sending NATO by it.

I mean, if you mean we are trying to show our intentions, well, I think everyone knows that we will do what we need to in order to deal with any percieved threat.

If you think that we are trying to show NATO that there may be a link between Iran and China, and that the US considers this unnaceptable that makes sense as well.

If you mean that we are trying to let NATO know it's about time to anti up, well I agree with that (though I have my doubts on how much help we will get).

I guess the problem is that there are a lot of implications to this, and I'm not sure which one you are focusing on.

And as far as 2008 goes. I googled it and all I can come up with is the Olympics. Again, is this what you are reffering to (as it would pertain to a major terrorist attack) or is their some big geo-political event I am missing


Help me out here, I have been working on my thesis for the past week and my brain is a bit fried



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:13 AM
link   
I'll send you a U2U.


I don't want to put a big analysis up here and start another cycle of US bashing/world domination nonsense. It's getting too damn hard to carry on a discussion on this board as it is. Every topic seems to degrade to the evil US and the dictator Bush. lol.

Give me a day or two to organize my thoughts. It's kind of complicated.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
I don't want to put a big analysis up here and start another cycle of US bashing/world domination nonsense. It's getting too damn hard to carry on a discussion on this board as it is. Every topic seems to degrade to the evil US and the dictator Bush. lol.


What ever do you mean? I haven't heard anything but positive remarks concerning our great nation and leader


Will be looking forward to your thoughts



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   
nato wouldnt have helped unles these "45 min weapons" cough 1 ton of uranium ore cough had been fired on the UK/US.
remember its a reaction force not action.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
So basically...It sounds like the US is trying harder to police the world.

will there be military bases on these 19 countries?

Do you think this is putting pressure on China or Iran in any way?

If those are allies wheres Europe or the UK?

Is this a move to make the US presence around the world stronger or to better our intel in that part of the world?

I'm not so sure I understand this move, and why they are doing it, and why this move will make us able to hold on to our hyperpower status.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It seems to me, we are surrounding Iran. I mean, as Engineer says, look at a map.

You've got Iraq and Turkey to the direct east/north east. Then Pakistan to the southwest, afghanistan to the mid west, Turkmenistan to the northwest. Then, putting more distance between them and China, you have India and Kazakhstan.

As far as China, you have Australia, Japan, Thailand, New Zealand and South Korea.

It's clear containment policy. China = the new Rival, Iran = the terrorist threat.

I'm just not sure about this message to NATO. I see this as a bit different, unless we are going to try and bring all these countries into NATO.

Funny enough, China has been playing in south America recently - this could turn into a more political cold war, with less military tension and more political/strategic manuevering.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
THAT US GUY IS TRYING TO MAKE A NEW UN!
look at it, a new us led asian peace keeping force.
now as i see it there is already a world wide peace keeping for the UN, though it may not be 100% effective it still exists.
the US is now createing a new one in the easiest place possible= asia.
i mean come on who in asia has the fire power to stop a massive american assault? china is one now if you seperate china from any country not joining this force you have lone countries looking very vunerable.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I think it has more to do with combating regional enemies in Iran and China.

US policy during the cold war was to Isolate the enemy. The same seems to be going on here. The fact that these nations also have a multi billion dollar energy agreement is also interesting.

Could The US be positioning it's self to blockade Iran citing terrorism in order to play economic war with China?


ExD

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This bloc in not for "peacekeeping", it's just rhetoric, but to gain control over rich resource base, I don't think that is smart move, because US is not in a good condition to do such things, moreover you alienate your last allies on geopolitical map.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExD
This bloc in not for "peacekeeping", it's just rhetoric, but to gain control over rich resource base, I don't think that is smart move, because US is not in a good condition to do such things, moreover you alienate your last allies on geopolitical map.


Who would that be?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The US is creating an extended military force resembling that of an empire. The US provides a small lethal quick-strike force whose mission is to topple regimes and quickly secure territory in the short-run. The secondary countries provide the larger peace-keeping force to subdue the long-run insurgencies and to help establish a government complaint to the empire's goals. If things go according to plan, the US establishes military outposts in the country and the new country enters the empire with a promise to provide forces to international peacekeeping. See the Pentagon's New Map...

www.usnews.com...

The member countries will be favored with trade concessions in exchange for supporting the US.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join