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.

 

US Soldiers in Bahrain? A secret treaty, or logistical plans for war?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Here is a link I found which happens to be the latest news that relates to the United States' position on Bahrain:

presstv.com...

Don't misjudge the headline. When it says that the US gave a green light for invasion, it really meant it supported Saudi, UAE and Kuwaiti intervention, otherwise known as the GCC Peninsula Shield in Bahrain. Notice also the date to be March 19, 2011. SInce then we continue to hear about the constant turmoil and many have speculated that Bahrain is one of many targets in the middle east on the US's hit list to incite social unrest and revolution and consequently order invasion as a resolution.

First let me ask this: Does anyone know if US troops have been deployed to Bahrain?

My searches have produced no information that would suggest that there may be US forces deployed in Bahrain. By US forces I mean actual battalions and regiments etc., and not crazy subversive delta 69 uber mega squads and platoons. I am talking actual occupation.

Well literally minutes ago I had received a message from a good friend and former band member now in the military that his unit was supposed to be deployed to Bahrain two weeks ago, then it got cancelled, then moved to Nov. 1, then cancelled again.

THis is the first part of the message that relates to what I'm talking about. The other half has to do with me hookiing up with a milf





like word is never offical, its always changing, we were suposed to leave for bahrian 2 weeks ago then it changed to nov 1st, and now i hear were not going... its dumb like the blind leading the blind cause our higher ups, our officers dont know wats going on, even all the way up to our generals, i seriously just get paid to work out all day... its a big waste of tax payers money...



I think this is a serious matter. Our government has the intention to invade Bahrain very soon. We all knew this for a while, but it is now not a matter of speculation. But why Bahrain? I don't really know. First take a look at Bahrain: www.state.gov... (link support not working for some reason here)

Above is a US Dept. Of State analysis of the Kingdom of Bahrain. I encourage you to ctrl-F the page and search for government and political conditions. What you find is that Bahrain is a constitutional monarchy and has been for almost a decade. The country has an established justice system:

Quote from: un.int/bahrain/government (links not working sorry) :

"Bahrain’s legal system draws upon Islamic religious law (the Sharia), tribal law, English common law, and other sources. All residents are subject to the jurisdiction of Bahraini courts, which guarantee equality to all before the law. The court system consists of civil and Sharia courts, both of which have courts of appeal. The country’s highest court is the Supreme Court of Appeal. The 2002 constitution established a Higher Judicial Council to supervise the functioning of the court system. The king chairs the council and appoints judges proposed by the council."

So in short the justice systems functions to protect civil liberties in accordance to British common law but still enforces Sharia Law sort of as a framework for civil conduct.

Also, the government since 2002 has itself been pushing for democratic reforms, promoting the notion of involvement in the processes of government as a civil duty open for all of the Kingdom's Citizen to freely participate. So then why, if the Kingdom already had an agenda of equality, freedom and democracy, did the Bahraini's revolt? Well it seems sectarian discrimination is, as always, the source of the current struggle.

(Source : www.guardian.co.uk...)

Quoted from above article: (caps are my doing)

"The Arab spring reached Bahrain on Valentine's Day; protesters – both Sunni and Shia – arrived in Manama's Pearl Square on 14 February to demand political freedoms, democratic reforms and greater equality for the SHIA MAJORITY. They were met with rubber bullets and teargas; three days later security forces switched to live ammunition. Within a few weeks some 2,000 Sunni soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had arrived in Bahrain, at the invitation of the Khalifas, to impose martial law – and, in doing so, poured oil on the fire of sectarian tensions...

...(victims) almost all of them Shia. According to an investigation by al-Jazeera, 28 Shia mosques and religious institutions have been destroyed by the authorities..."

What this suggests is that the increased tensions between Shia populations and the government are the real root for uprising, at least in Bahrain. For whatever reason, Shia's feel discriminated against, yet I can't find anything that supports such an accusation, except for the media reports that were birthed during the conflict up until now claiming the same prejudice yet not showing any evidence. I feel as though the increased tensions may have been aroused and instigated by international media and the like in order to create the right atmoshere of discord for the US to claim "the people's right to form a democracy" as the excuse to capitalize on the exaggerated and artificial divisions


I found this.

www.ft.com... html#axzz1XaBAS966

From above article: (caps of my doing)




The US and Bahrain sec­retly extended their defence co-operation agreement in 2002, it has emerged. The pact, which governs the home port of the US navy’s fifth fleet, was extended by five years and now runs until 2016. The extension means Wash­ington will avoid having to renegotiate the deal, which was set to expire next month, while the Middle Eastern kingdom is still cracking down on mainly SHIA pro-democracy activists.

The 10-year defence agreement, inked in 1991 following the first Gulf war, was renewed in October 2001 for 10 years. It was supposed to be due for renewal next month but the Financial Times has learnt that the Bush administration secretly extended the agreement for another five years in 2002, pushing it out until 2016.
The Pentagon said the agreement was classified and declined to confirm any details.

Former officials and analysts expressed surprise, both that the agreement had been extended by five years when it still had nine years to run and that the extension was secret, given that the fact and duration of other defence pacts is public, even if the substance is not.

Vice-Admiral Charles Moore, who was head of the fifth fleet and the navy’s central command in Bahrain until 2002, said the extension was “strange”.
“After we got into 9/11, there was a lot of talk about the long war – there was probably a set of actions to extend our presence at the foreign bases that we had,” he said. “It was probably one of these bureaucratic things – extend the [defence agreements] for as long as you can get them.”

Because it is not a full defence treaty, the agreement did not require approval from Congress, and is therefore not on the public record.



Could this extension have been made simply as a legal foundation for future grounds on which to justify the legality of invasion or war in Bahrain? What are the provision in this secret treaty? Next post. >>>>

edit on 10-9-2011 by asperetty because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Being that records of the treaty have not been made public, its difficult to find any substantive information regarding it. All I could find is this article that gives more of a general speculation on what the treaty enables the US to do, rather than what the treaty specifically says: www.spacewar.com...




The defense pact allows US access to bases in strategically located Bahrain, home the US Fifth Fleet, and for the United States to preposition its military equipment. It also provides for consultations if any security crisis arises for the Gulf country and for the United States to train Bahrain forces, according to the Congressional Research Service.


So this treaty allows the US to occupy Bahrain and in essence conscript their defense forces, except when that occurs, occupation won't be the word used to describe the condition of US forces in Bahrain, just like the war in Libya is actually Kinetic Action.

I don't really have the time to continue this research or speculation so I'll just summarize what what I think the points I tried to make were about:

1. The uprising in Bahrain was instigated and manipulated by the media to present it as a nationalistic revolution for democracy, when truth be told it is Shia revolt that I believe is similar in reason to the French Revolution, except that in this case all details are exaggerated in order to bring the international community to a consensus that is pro-US/NATO. This is not a real call for democracy. They already have it. Any "brutal" acts committed by the regime are due to consequence of the unfolding of events and not of purpose. The regime is not being tyrannical but is being protective and trying to maintain peace.

2. The US has been planning Bahrain's fall for some time and has made provisions to invade the Kingdom in the near future. Such plans are already being pushed but there is something that is keeping the execution of the plans from taking place. This might be due to economic situations in the States, but I think this is more about politics.



Sorry I don't have the time to really make this thread substantive with the right amounts of evidence and sources that respectable ATS'ers expect, but I just wanted to get the discussion rolling and make you all aware of what is in store.

Now I must study and hit the beach. Ill return later and try to add more.
edit on 10-9-2011 by asperetty because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Bahrain charges the US military a pretty penny every time they drive a truck across their border.


The total amount we've spent driving trucks across their border in the last 25 years would be enough money to plate all the US National Monuments with Gold.

Bahrain ain't stupid. Nor are they poor. They've been swindling you for decades.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Yeah but this isnt about using their supply routes. Its about the military actually putting together plans to deploy an occupying/liberating force



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Man you guys are paranoid....I'll answer your first question you posed in the OP...

Yes we have US forces in Bahrain....MANY of them. The United States Navy Fifth Fleet is stationed there!!!!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Bahrain charges the US military a pretty penny every time they drive a truck across their border.


The total amount we've spent driving trucks across their border in the last 25 years would be enough money to plate all the US National Monuments with Gold.

Bahrain ain't stupid. Nor are they poor. They've been swindling you for decades.


Bahrain is an island, what border?

As for the OP...The 5th fleet is homeported there, no real reason to invade. Just more PressTV crap.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


Bahrain is a major stop over for transport flights, not to mention the headquarters of the 5th fleet. And yes, there is a border, it is connected to Saudi Arabia via a causeway. Since we already have a major base there, why would we want social unrest? What more could a new government possibly give us? What does the US have to gain by inciting a revolution against a government which already allows us to be stationed on their soil?

So what is the issue again?
edit on 11-9-2011 by steppenwolf86 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by bg_socalif
 


Bahrain is a major stop over for transport flights, not to mention the headquarters of the 5th fleet. And yes, there is a border, it is connected to Saudi Arabia via a causeway. Since we already have a major base there, why would we want social unrest? What more could a new government possibly give us? What does the US have to gain by inciting a revolution against a government which already allows us to be stationed on their soil?

So what is the issue again?
edit on 11-9-2011 by steppenwolf86 because: spelling


I agree, what is the issue again?

Been there about a dozen times. The only thing that place has going for it is cheap gold.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
what the US did in Bahrain is complete naive double standards. Even if you are planning a invasion with the Saudis you should at least be very clear which side of the fence you are on.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The U.S. doesn't need to invade we are all ready there!

The U.S. Navy has had a base there for at least 20 years and the Bahrain's leaders are one of the most liberal in the Muslim world.

It is just a small island attached to Saudi Arabia by a causeway.

The Rhode Island National Guard could take it over in about a day.

They don't have a military to much,more like a national police force.

There are a lot of Americans living there,because of the Naval base.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


the place is a western playground....



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by asperetty
 


OP


I gave you a thumbs up for the effort and the time spent on creating this post.
I'll have to refrain from providing a S & F though for not researching the topic, the details or the history of the subject matter.

PEACE

Slay
edit on 12-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


the place is a western playground....


And a place for the hypcritical Saudi's to go and drink beer in mass quantities and chase Gulf Air stewardesses.




top topics



 
1

log in

join