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.

 

Myers: U.S. Weighs Long-Term Afghan Bases

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
In spite of the relative calm in Afhanistan, the US is contemplating the establishment of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan. The old Soviet base at Bagram is a place where there could be "a long-term presence of coalition and, frankly, U.S. capabilities."


Yahoo

"Security is very good throughout the country, exceptionally good," Myers told reporters at Kabul airport after talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. commanders.

Myers said no decision had been reached on whether to seek permanent bases on Afghan soil. "But clearly we've developed good relationships and good partnerships in this part of the world, not only in Afghanistan," he said, also mentioning existing U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

"That'll all be considered as we go forward with the whole global basing construct," he said. "Clearly the United States has an interest in the long-term security and stability in Afghanistan, so we'll be discussing that future relationship."


Many people made the argument that the sooner the fighting stops in Iraq, the sooner troops can leave. They say the Iraqis should just stop fighting if they really want the troops to get out of Iraq. Well, the fighting in Afghanistan has been reduced to a level that can only be dreamed about in Iraq and yet they are still planning to set up permanent bases. I think the peopole of Iraq know that's exactly what will happen in their country and that's why they continue to fight.




posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
No way what was "bringing democracy and freedom (TM)" is now potentially a "full scale occupation (TM)"?

Hmmmm... does anyone remember Europe... D-Day and all that?

Well the US still hasn't gone home some 15 years after the soviets did!!!

[edit on 17/3/2005 by Corinthas]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
In spite of the relative calm in Afhanistan, the US is contemplating the establishment of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan. The old Soviet base at Bagram is a place where there could be "a long-term presence of coalition and, frankly, U.S. capabilities."


Yahoo

"Security is very good throughout the country, exceptionally good," Myers told reporters at Kabul airport after talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. commanders.

Myers said no decision had been reached on whether to seek permanent bases on Afghan soil. "But clearly we've developed good relationships and good partnerships in this part of the world, not only in Afghanistan," he said, also mentioning existing U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

"That'll all be considered as we go forward with the whole global basing construct," he said. "Clearly the United States has an interest in the long-term security and stability in Afghanistan, so we'll be discussing that future relationship."


Many people made the argument that the sooner the fighting stops in Iraq, the sooner troops can leave. They say the Iraqis should just stop fighting if they really want the troops to get out of Iraq. Well, the fighting in Afghanistan has been reduced to a level that can only be dreamed about in Iraq and yet they are still planning to set up permanent bases. I think the peopole of Iraq know that's exactly what will happen in their country and that's why they continue to fight.


Well, lets say a base is set up there and Iraq. Having a base in thier country is hardly being occupied. The US has had bases in SA and I wouldnt say the US occupied SA.

Besides, US bases are becoming obsolete anyways:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Well, lets say a base is set up there and Iraq. Having a base in thier country is hardly being occupied. The US has had bases in SA and I wouldnt say the US occupied SA.


If you had an Iranian, Russian or Chinese military base in the US you might feel differently.
Bin Laden & Co felt Saudi Arabia was occupied and that was one of the reasons they gave for their attacks. They way they see American military bases and the way Americans see them are different.

[edit on 17-3-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I would feel differently if there were an Iranian base in the USA. But that will never happen so I wont worry about it.

Leys face it, before all this crap is done, you and I know there will be at least one new US base in that region. Like it or hate it. But that has more to do with reaching far out and gaining airspace than the desire to occupy.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
more than likely, when a base is set-up in an area like these, the military personnel will have little to do with the country they are stationed in at that time. they are there for other reasons, to watch other countries, like china, north korea, russia, syria, iran, saudi arabia, etc. i said from the beginning this was part of the reason for going there, but i thought they'd set-up a base in iraq long before afg.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
No chance they won't stay for ever.

They're there to protect the oil pipeline - that's why they went in in the first place.

Just another outpost in the global ring of bases as part of the new world order.



new topics




 
0

log in

join