US says Russian planes buzzed Navy ship in Baltic Sea

[Ulic]

The Cook knew the minute these planes took off and could have taken them out before they were visible by crew on the ship. An eye in the sky was nearby. Which was also buzzed while in international air space. I see provocation by one side here. Someone is going to make a mistake and then things will go pear shaped quickly. Dangerous stuff.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-plane-intercepted-russian-jet-unsafe-010356886.html

As usual you see only what you want to see. Would like to see the US response if a Russian destroyer turned up in Hudson Bay 70km from a naval hub...

The only one who would notice are the polar bears and beluga whales. 70 k from shore is to far out for the Inuit.

No naval hub I am aware of. Maybe some Inuit hunters with outboard motors.

[craigt3365]

The Cook knew the minute these planes took off and could have taken them out before they were visible by crew on the ship. An eye in the sky was nearby. Which was also buzzed while in international air space. I see provocation by one side here. Someone is going to make a mistake and then things will go pear shaped quickly. Dangerous stuff.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-plane-intercepted-russian-jet-unsafe-010356886.html

As usual you see only what you want to see. Would like to see the US response if a Russian destroyer turned up in Hudson Bay 70km from a naval hub...

Ummm....Hudson Bay is in Canada. And it's not international waters.

Perhaps you can research the path the Chinese war ships recently took through US waters, and the associated US reaction. Zilch.

https://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska

[craigt3365]

I wonder how USA would react if Russia started to have bases in Mexico, Canada,... and sail in international waters close to the USA national waters.

Guess the USA wouldn t be happy.

Damn last time this happened it was nearly a world war with Cuba.

But as long as good ol'US has military bases all around Russia, sail quite close from the russian waters, everything should be ok, right?

And at the same time Obama push to avoid a bill which could lead Saudi to trial for 9/11....what joke this country is

If Mexico invited Russia to open a base, nothing the US could do. Same as the US bases near Russia. They are there by invitation. And for good reasons, perhaps?

[craigt3365]

Interesting encounter. Doesn't seem very safe, though.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-fighter-jet-barrel-rolls-over-us-reconnaissance-plane-perilous-manoeuvre-1555322?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Dear George - Your trolling to hard.

Some people here might actually remember the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Long ago and in fact back when little Vlad was just a low level KGB drone. Back then Russian Trawlers always hung outside the 12 mile INTERNATIONAL limit around US bases. Shock, Gasp, Horror!!

In actual practice that means 15 to 20 miles offshore from say ... San Diego, San Francisco and the Straits of Juan De Fuca between Vancouver Island Canada and the state of Washington US, where the ships from Bremerton Naval base and Bangor Trident sub base exit into the Pacific. They were there of course to gather radio information and drop there sonic microphones, er nets, to record the submarines propeller and engine signature. And many other bases, I just have first hand knowledge of these west coast bases.

How do I know, well you can read about it However I used to both fish and sail off the coast so we would see them. Always and incredible amount of radio antennas for s fishing boats, heh. Cuba had nothing to do with bases, but you know that.

The troll line you are spouting likely works better with an ignorant, uneducated rural population living in poverty. No matter if lacking in most western amenities, and banging it up with vodka they will have a satellite dish so they can suck up the latest in populist PR propaganda.

Go Troll Team !

50s, 60s,70s... well that was the cold war, right? I mean it is not like we have the same situation here.

Also if I remember correctly Cuba situation nearly escalated to war...so I am not sure the USA would let another cuba style nowdays. Even with mexico and Canada with just projects of russian bases would bring a torrent of sh.t on them and we all know the USA is not an hegemonic country who brings peace and democracy worldwide or if needed fuel the opposition when a government do not suit them.

So having the USA putting missiles at the very border of Russia is not a problem, right? I mean why Russia, or Iran as another example would be offended by this?

I am quite sure if Russia was 12 miles from San Francisco with warships there would be lot of international condemnations.

Also in your comment you speak about fishing boat with antenna and radars. Well the US vessel was not a fishing boat, it was a war vessel.

So yes they can do that, just as they can put bases all around Russia, try to corner Iran as well.

Another thing, you praise yourself with "the knowledge" well in that case you probably know these kind of close encounters between Russia and US ( or US and China, or US and middle east country...look for the common denominator here) always have some kind of show off and are not considered dangerous..It is not coming from me but from the very crew of the US boat which witnessed the Russian planes.

My comment may work with "ignorant people" but sure yours are the one who eat FAUX news and other bullshit from the media and the "good Old Freedom bringers".

When a country like US has a president who either create a lot of shit worldwide (like Bush) and one who lobby to avoid a bill which could lead to legal action against the Saudi in 9/11 terrorist attacks, you know you re in good hands...right?

So please go back to your fishing boat and and build your own bridge

[ThailandLOS]

50s, 60s,70s... well that was the cold war, right? I mean it is not like we have the same situation here.

Also if I remember correctly Cuba situation nearly escalated to war...so I am not sure the USA would let another cuba style nowdays. Even with mexico and Canada with just projects of russian bases would bring a torrent of sh.t on them and we all know the USA is not an hegemonic country who brings peace and democracy worldwide or if needed fuel the opposition when a government do not suit them.

So having the USA putting missiles at the very border of Russia is not a problem, right? I mean why Russia, or Iran as another example would be offended by this?

I am quite sure if Russia was 12 miles from San Francisco with warships there would be lot of international condemnations.

Also in your comment you speak about fishing boat with antenna and radars. Well the US vessel was not a fishing boat, it was a war vessel.

So yes they can do that, just as they can put bases all around Russia, try to corner Iran as well.

Another thing, you praise yourself with "the knowledge" well in that case you probably know these kind of close encounters between Russia and US ( or US and China, or US and middle east country...look for the common denominator here) always have some kind of show off and are not considered dangerous..It is not coming from me but from the very crew of the US boat which witnessed the Russian planes.

My comment may work with "ignorant people" but sure yours are the one who eat FAUX news and other bullshit from the media and the "good Old Freedom bringers".

When a country like US has a president who either create a lot of shit worldwide (like Bush) and one who lobby to avoid a bill which could lead to legal action against the Saudi in 9/11 terrorist attacks, you know you re in good hands...right?

So please go back to your fishing boat and and build your own bridge

Agree on all counts, except you don't really think US was governed by GWB, or is by Obama for that matter, do you? These are just front puppets for the war mongers in the back room.

[ThailandLOS]

[craigt3365]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

[craigt3365]

Dear George - Your trolling to hard.

Some people here might actually remember the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Long ago and in fact back when little Vlad was just a low level KGB drone. Back then Russian Trawlers always hung outside the 12 mile INTERNATIONAL limit around US bases. Shock, Gasp, Horror!!

In actual practice that means 15 to 20 miles offshore from say ... San Diego, San Francisco and the Straits of Juan De Fuca between Vancouver Island Canada and the state of Washington US, where the ships from Bremerton Naval base and Bangor Trident sub base exit into the Pacific. They were there of course to gather radio information and drop there sonic microphones, er nets, to record the submarines propeller and engine signature. And many other bases, I just have first hand knowledge of these west coast bases.

How do I know, well you can read about it However I used to both fish and sail off the coast so we would see them. Always and incredible amount of radio antennas for s fishing boats, heh. Cuba had nothing to do with bases, but you know that.

The troll line you are spouting likely works better with an ignorant, uneducated rural population living in poverty. No matter if lacking in most western amenities, and banging it up with vodka they will have a satellite dish so they can suck up the latest in populist PR propaganda.

Go Troll Team !

50s, 60s,70s... well that was the cold war, right? I mean it is not like we have the same situation here.

Also if I remember correctly Cuba situation nearly escalated to war...so I am not sure the USA would let another cuba style nowdays. Even with mexico and Canada with just projects of russian bases would bring a torrent of sh.t on them and we all know the USA is not an hegemonic country who brings peace and democracy worldwide or if needed fuel the opposition when a government do not suit them.

So having the USA putting missiles at the very border of Russia is not a problem, right? I mean why Russia, or Iran as another example would be offended by this?

I am quite sure if Russia was 12 miles from San Francisco with warships there would be lot of international condemnations.

Also in your comment you speak about fishing boat with antenna and radars. Well the US vessel was not a fishing boat, it was a war vessel.

So yes they can do that, just as they can put bases all around Russia, try to corner Iran as well.

Another thing, you praise yourself with "the knowledge" well in that case you probably know these kind of close encounters between Russia and US ( or US and China, or US and middle east country...look for the common denominator here) always have some kind of show off and are not considered dangerous..It is not coming from me but from the very crew of the US boat which witnessed the Russian planes.

My comment may work with "ignorant people" but sure yours are the one who eat FAUX news and other bullshit from the media and the "good Old Freedom bringers".

When a country like US has a president who either create a lot of shit worldwide (like Bush) and one who lobby to avoid a bill which could lead to legal action against the Saudi in 9/11 terrorist attacks, you know you re in good hands...right?

So please go back to your fishing boat and and build your own bridge

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

[Tywais]

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

Not sure what you mean. Up to 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles) off the coast is territorial waters of the US, beyond is international waters with this exception - there is an additional 12 nautical miles referred to as the contiguous zone. This is covered in the UN convention of law of the seas.

Boston, MA - At an event today at the New England Aquarium in Boston, Vice President Al Gore announced new action by the United States to help protect and preserve our nation's coastal shores and precious oceans, helping ensure that future generations of American working families will enjoy a cleaner environment and safer streets.

Specifically, the Vice President announced that the United States is strengthening its ability to enforce environmental, customs and immigration laws at sea by expanding a critical enforcement zone to include waters within 24 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. A proclamation signed today by President Clinton formally extends the U.S. "contiguous zone" from 12 to 24 miles, doubling the area within which the Coast Guard and other federal authorities can board foreign vessels and take other actions to enforce U.S. law.

Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/990902a.html

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Dear George - Your trolling to hard.

Some people here might actually remember the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Long ago and in fact back when little Vlad was just a low level KGB drone. Back then Russian Trawlers always hung outside the 12 mile INTERNATIONAL limit around US bases. Shock, Gasp, Horror!!

In actual practice that means 15 to 20 miles offshore from say ... San Diego, San Francisco and the Straits of Juan De Fuca between Vancouver Island Canada and the state of Washington US, where the ships from Bremerton Naval base and Bangor Trident sub base exit into the Pacific. They were there of course to gather radio information and drop there sonic microphones, er nets, to record the submarines propeller and engine signature. And many other bases, I just have first hand knowledge of these west coast bases.

How do I know, well you can read about it However I used to both fish and sail off the coast so we would see them. Always and incredible amount of radio antennas for s fishing boats, heh. Cuba had nothing to do with bases, but you know that.

The troll line you are spouting likely works better with an ignorant, uneducated rural population living in poverty. No matter if lacking in most western amenities, and banging it up with vodka they will have a satellite dish so they can suck up the latest in populist PR propaganda.

Go Troll Team !

50s, 60s,70s... well that was the cold war, right? I mean it is not like we have the same situation here.

Also if I remember correctly Cuba situation nearly escalated to war...so I am not sure the USA would let another cuba style nowdays. Even with mexico and Canada with just projects of russian bases would bring a torrent of sh.t on them and we all know the USA is not an hegemonic country who brings peace and democracy worldwide or if needed fuel the opposition when a government do not suit them.

So having the USA putting missiles at the very border of Russia is not a problem, right? I mean why Russia, or Iran as another example would be offended by this?

I am quite sure if Russia was 12 miles from San Francisco with warships there would be lot of international condemnations.

Also in your comment you speak about fishing boat with antenna and radars. Well the US vessel was not a fishing boat, it was a war vessel.

So yes they can do that, just as they can put bases all around Russia, try to corner Iran as well.

Another thing, you praise yourself with "the knowledge" well in that case you probably know these kind of close encounters between Russia and US ( or US and China, or US and middle east country...look for the common denominator here) always have some kind of show off and are not considered dangerous..It is not coming from me but from the very crew of the US boat which witnessed the Russian planes.

My comment may work with "ignorant people" but sure yours are the one who eat FAUX news and other bullshit from the media and the "good Old Freedom bringers".

When a country like US has a president who either create a lot of shit worldwide (like Bush) and one who lobby to avoid a bill which could lead to legal action against the Saudi in 9/11 terrorist attacks, you know you re in good hands...right?

So please go back to your fishing boat and and build your own bridge

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

Yeah sorry 12 nautical miles of territorial waters+12 of contiguous zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

Please read and learn

And say hello to Chuck'd for me, he misses me I guess, as he likes every answer to my comments

[chuckd]

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

Not sure what you mean. Up to 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles) off the coast is territorial waters of the US, beyond is international waters with this exception - there is an additional 12 nautical miles referred to as the contiguous zone. This is covered in the UN convention of law of the seas.

Boston, MA - At an event today at the New England Aquarium in Boston, Vice President Al Gore announced new action by the United States to help protect and preserve our nation's coastal shores and precious oceans, helping ensure that future generations of American working families will enjoy a cleaner environment and safer streets.

Specifically, the Vice President announced that the United States is strengthening its ability to enforce environmental, customs and immigration laws at sea by expanding a critical enforcement zone to include waters within 24 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. A proclamation signed today by President Clinton formally extends the U.S. "contiguous zone" from 12 to 24 miles, doubling the area within which the Coast Guard and other federal authorities can board foreign vessels and take other actions to enforce U.S. law.

Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/990902a.html

The additional 12 miles of the contiguous zone makes international waters beginning at the 24 nautical mile mark from San Francisco.

It would seem Craig got this one right and our little French friend, who seemingly hates Americans unless we are kicking the German army out of Paris, wrong.

[craigt3365]

Dear George - Your trolling to hard.

Some people here might actually remember the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. Long ago and in fact back when little Vlad was just a low level KGB drone. Back then Russian Trawlers always hung outside the 12 mile INTERNATIONAL limit around US bases. Shock, Gasp, Horror!!

In actual practice that means 15 to 20 miles offshore from say ... San Diego, San Francisco and the Straits of Juan De Fuca between Vancouver Island Canada and the state of Washington US, where the ships from Bremerton Naval base and Bangor Trident sub base exit into the Pacific. They were there of course to gather radio information and drop there sonic microphones, er nets, to record the submarines propeller and engine signature. And many other bases, I just have first hand knowledge of these west coast bases.

How do I know, well you can read about it However I used to both fish and sail off the coast so we would see them. Always and incredible amount of radio antennas for s fishing boats, heh. Cuba had nothing to do with bases, but you know that.

The troll line you are spouting likely works better with an ignorant, uneducated rural population living in poverty. No matter if lacking in most western amenities, and banging it up with vodka they will have a satellite dish so they can suck up the latest in populist PR propaganda.

Go Troll Team !

50s, 60s,70s... well that was the cold war, right? I mean it is not like we have the same situation here.

Also if I remember correctly Cuba situation nearly escalated to war...so I am not sure the USA would let another cuba style nowdays. Even with mexico and Canada with just projects of russian bases would bring a torrent of sh.t on them and we all know the USA is not an hegemonic country who brings peace and democracy worldwide or if needed fuel the opposition when a government do not suit them.

So having the USA putting missiles at the very border of Russia is not a problem, right? I mean why Russia, or Iran as another example would be offended by this?

I am quite sure if Russia was 12 miles from San Francisco with warships there would be lot of international condemnations.

Also in your comment you speak about fishing boat with antenna and radars. Well the US vessel was not a fishing boat, it was a war vessel.

So yes they can do that, just as they can put bases all around Russia, try to corner Iran as well.

Another thing, you praise yourself with "the knowledge" well in that case you probably know these kind of close encounters between Russia and US ( or US and China, or US and middle east country...look for the common denominator here) always have some kind of show off and are not considered dangerous..It is not coming from me but from the very crew of the US boat which witnessed the Russian planes.

My comment may work with "ignorant people" but sure yours are the one who eat FAUX news and other bullshit from the media and the "good Old Freedom bringers".

When a country like US has a president who either create a lot of shit worldwide (like Bush) and one who lobby to avoid a bill which could lead to legal action against the Saudi in 9/11 terrorist attacks, you know you re in good hands...right?

So please go back to your fishing boat and and build your own bridge

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

Yeah sorry 12 nautical miles of territorial waters+12 of contiguous zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

Please read and learn

And say hello to Chuck'd for me, he misses me I guess, as he likes every answer to my comments

I did read about this. Before I posted wrong info. Nice you admitted you are wrong. Seriously, that's impressive.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Good gosh. What a rant. 12 miles off San Fran is not international waters. Wow.

Not sure what you mean. Up to 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles) off the coast is territorial waters of the US, beyond is international waters with this exception - there is an additional 12 nautical miles referred to as the contiguous zone. This is covered in the UN convention of law of the seas.

Boston, MA - At an event today at the New England Aquarium in Boston, Vice President Al Gore announced new action by the United States to help protect and preserve our nation's coastal shores and precious oceans, helping ensure that future generations of American working families will enjoy a cleaner environment and safer streets.

Specifically, the Vice President announced that the United States is strengthening its ability to enforce environmental, customs and immigration laws at sea by expanding a critical enforcement zone to include waters within 24 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. A proclamation signed today by President Clinton formally extends the U.S. "contiguous zone" from 12 to 24 miles, doubling the area within which the Coast Guard and other federal authorities can board foreign vessels and take other actions to enforce U.S. law.

Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/990902a.html

The additional 12 miles of the contiguous zone makes international waters beginning at the 24 nautical mile mark from San Francisco.

It would seem Craig got this one right and our little French friend, who seemingly hates Americans unless we are kicking the German army out of Paris, wrong.

Edited cause in fact this guy doesn t deserve any attention.

Edited April 19, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[GeorgesAbitbol]

I did read about this. Before I posted wrong info. Nice you admitted you are wrong. Seriously, that's impressive.

Not completly anyway, as international waters include the contiguous zone, not the other way

[ThailandLOS]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

Oh right, especially Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945 after US nuked the hell out of them, and Afghanistan in 2001. Where can copies of these "invitations" be found?

You're wrong again (lost count on how many times by now). I won't even comment on Crimea (where you are wrong one more time).

This concludes my discussion with you, since you are totally ignorant and obviously can't be taken seriously.

[craigt3365]

Maybe this will help you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

[craigt3365]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

Oh right, especially Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945 after US nuked the hell out of them, and Afghanistan in 2001. Where can copies of these "invitations" be found?

You're wrong again (lost count on how many times by now). I won't even comment on Crimea (where you are wrong one more time).

This concludes my discussion with you, since you are totally ignorant and obviously can't be taken seriously.

What has WW II got to do with this topic. Maybe we can get back to the topic.

But....to prove you are wrong....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/german-town-fears-loss-of-us-army-base/2012/03/23/gIQAoNzzeS_story.html

Quite the military presence in Germany. I'd guess they are there for a reason and at the invitation of the German government.

http://militarybases.com/germany/

You are battling a losing game and insults don't help.

[Johpa]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

I don't believe that Afghanistan invited the US there. The various "stans" with US bases, as well as neighboring Azerbaijan, are ruled by thugs who, in a time honored US foreign policy tradition in search of access to oil and other resources, are easily bought off by graft and women. I mean it is just so much more economical to find the most brutal thug in the military to place as leader and simply pay his palace guard well, ply the leader with international geishas and money while sending said leaders wife to an all-expense paid shopping trip to Switzerland. But yes, over time, once the people topple such leaders, such as Marcos in the Philippines, invitations can be withdrawn.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johpa

[mopar71]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

Oh right, especially Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945 after US nuked the hell out of them, and Afghanistan in 2001. Where can copies of these "invitations" be found?

You're wrong again (lost count on how many times by now). I won't even comment on Crimea (where you are wrong one more time).

This concludes my discussion with you, since you are totally ignorant and obviously can't be taken seriously.

First of all, the most of those bases on your map may be marked with the NATO symbol but they are not NATO bases.

The US closed bases in several countries when asked, besides The Philippines there was France and Greece as well. In contrast, as the Czechs and Hungarians what happened when they wanted the Soviets to leave? 22 years ago President Yeltsin was the first Russian leader to pull troops out voluntarily, and he is considered a traitor by many in Russia. Now we are back to Putin who is invading neighbors and putting the troops back. His day is coming.

[chuckd]

The map shows a base in Saudi Arabia. The only thing the US has in Saudi is the housing compound for the USMTM residents.

Just more typical liberal BS.

[Publicus]

The Cook knew the minute these planes took off and could have taken them out before they were visible by crew on the ship. An eye in the sky was nearby. Which was also buzzed while in international air space. I see provocation by one side here. Someone is going to make a mistake and then things will go pear shaped quickly. Dangerous stuff.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-air-force-plane-intercepted-russian-jet-unsafe-010356886.html

As usual you see only what you want to see. Would like to see the US response if a Russian destroyer turned up in Hudson Bay 70km from a naval hub...

Hudson Bay is in Canada.

We'd help 'em out anyway even tho Canadian armed forces could handle it just fine on their own.

We'd get involved because Canada and USA do have and jointly operate the North American Aerospace Defence Command based in Colorado Springs Colorado since the 1950s.

The situation cooked up in your post presents exactly the reason NORAD exists and why the Soviet Union and now Russia stays away from Canada. They'd take it over if they could y'know. They absolutely can't, never could, never would.

Given that Santa Claus lives in Canada, NORAD tracks his progress each Christmas Eve live on radio and most recently via Internet. It's a public service by our armed forces working cheerfully together and bringing joy to families and children throughout the continent.

Putin wants to own Santa too, to include Mrs. Claus, their elves and the reindeer. He can forget that also.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Publicus

[jerico2017]

I challenge you, fight me.

bawk bawk bawk bawnawk.

[craigt3365]

You guys are missing the point. Countries with US bases have invited the US there. And like what happened in the Philippines, can get kicked out at any time. It's not like Crimea. They had no choice.

I don't believe that Afghanistan invited the US there. The various "stans" with US bases, as well as neighboring Azerbaijan, are ruled by thugs who, in a time honored US foreign policy tradition in search of access to oil and other resources, are easily bought off by graft and women. I mean it is just so much more economical to find the most brutal thug in the military to place as leader and simply pay his palace guard well, ply the leader with international geishas and money while sending said leaders wife to an all-expense paid shopping trip to Switzerland. But yes, over time, once the people topple such leaders, such as Marcos in the Philippines, invitations can be withdrawn.

The afghanistan bases are absolutely at the invitation of the government. Some locals are getting rich off this. Same with the stans. It's all about money. And worries about Russia, in the case of the Stans.

They are ruled by corrupt thugs. But it's not about oil. You are aware the US is almost 100% energy independent?

Do some research on what china is doing in the Stans. Sinophobia is the new word there. I'll be visiting all 5 starting in mid May, for about 6 weeks. Starting in Turkmenistan.

[craigt3365]

The map shows a base in Saudi Arabia. The only thing the US has in Saudi is the housing compound for the USMTM residents.

Just more typical liberal BS.

Many sources say there are bases in SA. Liberal BS? Really? 555 Too funny.

[chuckd]

The map shows a base in Saudi Arabia. The only thing the US has in Saudi is the housing compound for the USMTM residents.

Just more typical liberal BS.

Many sources say there are bases in SA. Liberal BS? Really? 555 Too funny.

Where are the bases?

[Scotwight]

The map shows a base in Saudi Arabia. The only thing the US has in Saudi is the housing compound for the USMTM residents.

Just more typical liberal BS.

Many sources say there are bases in SA. Liberal BS? Really? 555 Too funny.

U.S. officials transferred control of Prince Sultan Air Base to Saudi officials at a ceremony on August 26, 2003. The base had been home to up to 60,000 US personnel at one time.

Currently, 64th Air Expeditionary Group. The group is made up of about 300 security forces, support airmen, and civilians in two squadrons: the 64th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron and the 64th Expeditionary Support Squadron.

Wiki

[chuckd]

The map shows a base in Saudi Arabia. The only thing the US has in Saudi is the housing compound for the USMTM residents.

Just more typical liberal BS.

Many sources say there are bases in SA. Liberal BS? Really? 555 Too funny.

U.S. officials transferred control of Prince Sultan Air Base to Saudi officials at a ceremony on August 26, 2003. The base had been home to up to 60,000 US personnel at one time.

Currently, 64th Air Expeditionary Group. The group is made up of about 300 security forces, support airmen, and civilians in two squadrons: the 64th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron and the 64th Expeditionary Support Squadron.

Wiki

The 64th Air Expeditionary Group is inactive and has been for several years. The US military has no assets positioned in Saudi Arabia.

Eskan Village in Riyadh is the housing compound for the USMTM mission.

[derator01]

A link to a less than reputable website has been removed from view. Please, links to reputable websites only.

Per forum rules:

26) The Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post or Phuketwan publications will be deleted from the forum.

These restrictions are put in place by the above publications, not Thaivisa.com
In rare cases, forum Administrators or the news team may use these sources under special permission.

Edit: An off-topic post has also been removed.