Confused? I thought we pulled

[serryjw]

all our bases out of Saudi Arabia? This is updated 6.26/06 ( Great website!)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/2006/0626wartheatre.htm

[Kire]

1. Where did you hear that?

[welshTerrier2]

2. lots of sources

here's one for starters: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml

[Kire]

3. beats me

maybe we changed our mind, or the map could be wrong

nonetheless, it is a neat map

[serryjw]

4. WT...Good to see you!

quote......
Earlier on Tuesday, the US military confirmed that it was moving its air command centre from Saudi Arabia to the al-Udeid air base in neighbouring Qatar.

US Rear Admiral David Nichols said the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) at the Prince Sultan base in Saudi Arabia would be closed by the end of the summer.

"We already have switched, as of yesterday (Monday)," Admiral Nichols said.
end quote......
as of 4/29/03
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

[welshTerrier2]

7. thanks, serryjw!

several articles i found on this subject suggested that a "small number" of Americans would remain in Saudi Arabia for training and joint exercises and such ...

of course, a permanent base is a permanent base ... one also has to wonder whether the airstrips are still being used for "certain purposes" ...

this excellent article talks about countries all over trying to expel US military bases from their sovereign soil ... Chalmers Johnson writes that the US maintains roughly 735 military bases outside the US ... he sites this as one of the strongest examples of the US as an empire ...

the US relationship with Saudi Arabia was perverse long before bush arrived ... he's certainly only made things much worse ... it almost didn't seem possible ...

[serryjw]

8. The chess game is getting interesting

Multinationals are as inflexible as Bushit's foreign policies. We now need the oil and we are making too many enemies.

[welshTerrier2]

10. long-range talk of alternative energy is not adequate

Gore talks so articulately about global warming ... he says we only have 10 years to start aggressively dealing with the problem or it will be too late ... others have talked about reducing dependence on oil by x% by 2015 or 2020 ...

all great ideas ... i'm afraid we just don't have that kind of time ...

my view is that we need a much, much more aggressive (and painful) approach to reducing our use of imported oil and reducing our generation of CO2 from burning fossil fuels ...

the problem is, our political infrastructure refuses to take the risk of telling the American people the truth about the sacrifices we need to make NOW ...

Gore's arguments, at least the ones i'm familiar with, focus on global warming and environmental concerns ... the article i referred you to in my previous post makes the global "politics of oil" an equally pressing factor ...

we may very soon find ourselves in a situation where we cannot buy the oil we need ... more and more, our treatment of oil producing nations is catching up to us ... we may soon be forced to drop the fascade about being the "good guys" and flat out attack and conquer other countries to steal their oil or we may face a very rapid transition to reduced oil use that will shock the nation ... our economy will be traumatized and so will our way of life ... the time to act is NOW and the acts that are needed are far more extreme than our "leaders" are willing to discuss ...

several very substantial policy changes are needed ... first, we absolutely have to make significant and immediate reductions in our use of oil ... period ... i'm not talking about reductions of 5% or 10%; i don't really have enough background to know what can be achieved but we may need to look at reductions of 25% or maybe even 50% ... that's not just a reduction in imported oil; that's a reduction of how much CO2 we produce ...

this means, as best i can determine, that we need to regulate auto use and transition as many commuters as possible to the use of mass transit or "work from home" ... we cannot continue to do what we currently are doing ...

and it means major political changes ... we cannot allow Big Oil to dictate policy ... do they care if they pollute our air? i don't think so ... do they care if American military must be used to help them procure bigger profits and more access to foreign oil? ... i don't think so ...

it's time to recognize the dangers we face ... real leaders would put the interests of the country, even the country's survival, ahead of mere domestic political considerations ... ultimately, they would be the real heroes and the real leaders that will preserve the nation ... where oh where can they be??!!

[serryjw]

11. Totally agree

I have no car, live in 550 sq feet, walk or bus everywhere. We started a program here in Denver to bus Thursdays.Our buses allow you to take your bike on the bus. It's working. More companies are allowing their employees to work from home when job allows. There are so many scooters in D/T Denver. We just need more of the same all over the country........and fast!

[welshTerrier2]

12. free mass transit

to encourage the use of mass transit, we should recognize the staggering costs to the society of auto use, and make all mass transit absolutely free ... the lost revenues would be made up from either additional taxes on autos or from other existing revenue sources ...

we need to get serious about mass transit ... not everyone can take advantage of it and mass transit today is far from adequate ... still, we should do everything we possibly can to make its regular use by most citizens a reality ...

some of these programs would need to be phased in as we make the transition and develop the necessary resources ... we have to start now ...

[serryjw]

13. Free is not possible,IMHO

but anyone is going to save 90% of their transit cost if they would bus vs drive.

[welshTerrier2]

14. the free mass transit argument

the free mass transit argument such as it is, is that we are already paying a much higher cost in imported oil costs, military costs to support the procurement of foreign oil, hidden costs of global warming, hidden costs of air pollution that lead to respiratory disease and soaring medical expenses, etc ... and of course there's almost no way to assess the overall 'economic" cost of roughly 40,000 highway deaths a year ...

the argument is that providing the maximum possible incentive for Americans to use mass transit, i.e. to provide free mass transit, would be a lower cost overall than the total cost we currently pay to support the imported oil and private auto use infrastructure ...

as they say, you mileage may vary ...

[serryjw]

15. My RTD is private

what do you do then?

[welshTerrier2]

16. interesting ...

well, i won't get into a prolonged discussion of socialism in response to your question ...

from a policy perspective, i would support "free" mass transit "fares" to strongly encourage the use of mass transit and to recognize that it would be cheaper for the society to pay for mass transit use (not to mention mass transit overall is used more by poorer people than by wealthier people) for everyone than to allow the current hidden costs to be passed on to the society ...

with regard to a private mass transit company, i guess i would have the following perspective ... truthfully, i haven't given the issue very much thought ... it's worth considering the question you asked in greater detail ...

for now, my point of view would be to view private transit companies as providing a valuable societal service ... i would view them no differently than a government supported literacy program or a public library of public or private trash collection ... for example, my town just switched to a fee based system for trash pick-up ... the company does not charge the residents for trash collection; the town does ... the company is then paid from town revenues ... the same could be done for a private mass transit provider ... make the fares free to all ... find a revenue source and have the local government (town, country, city, state, whatever) "subsidize" (i would recommend 100%) the fares by paying the tranpsortation company as a "contractor" ...

in the end, the mechanism is less important to me that achieving the goal ... whatever it takes to transition to mass transit from private auto use should be explored ... personally, i'm strongly opposed to letting the market mechanism "abuse" the poor ... right now, the system in place is to let gas prices rise so high many "can't afford to get there from here" and no real mass transit is being enhanced ... that is plain and simple class warfare and it's unacceptable ... my preference is to be more positive than that by making mass transit much, much more affordable for everyone ... tax and burden the undesirable conduct (i.e. private auto use) and provide an excellent, desirable alternative by offering improved, and hopefully free or at least heavily subsidized, quality mass transit ...

the bottom line here is that we really do NOT have any choice ...

this is a great thread, btw, and a fascinating discussion ... of course, we've wandered 7,000 or 8,000 miles OT ... too bad others aren't joining in ...

[serryjw]

17. Unfortunately, we are a country

that does not deal with problems until the sh*t hit the fan. In theory, I agree but it won't happen. The good news is that Denver is spending billions on mass transportation. When it becomes more accessable and convenient we will have mmany more using it.The major extension of our light rail is opening 11/06
http://www.rtd-denver.com/

[blm]

5. There were some articles about it in 2003 - only print, no broadcast

MH1 just posted them on a DU thread about Saudi bases last week.

[Kire]

6. Thanks nt

[Parche]

9. bases

I think Einstein joined up with the Marines.........................