|
|
US to establish naval base in Georgia
By: Press TV on: 07.09.2008 [14:32 ] (4133 reads)
|
(716 bytes) [nc]
|
|
US to establish naval base in Georgia
Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:26:05 GMT
The US is negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at one of the two key Georgian ports of Batumi or Poti, reports say.
Turkey, in an attempt to avoid political tension with Russia, has not officially revealed its position regarding the plan, said Gruzya Online, a Russian-language internet site.
Russia had previously announced its intention to station its own special forces at the Georgian ports.
One of the responsibilities of US Special Forces in the region is to ensure the security of an oil pipeline passing through Georgia.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68735§ionid=351020606
by cosmo on 07.09.2008 [15:39 ]
|
|
|
a base in Venezuela, Chavez wold welcome that, unless we are watching theatrics of the higher school of the Zionist NWO.
|
by falluja_superstar on 07.09.2008 [18:39 ]
|
|
|
russia should stop playing games and provide real advanced weapons to Syria and Iran. If not, I am pretty sure the Russians are in this Illuminati charade of a West-Russia conflict designed for world war III.
|
by FreePapuaMovement on 07.09.2008 [20:20 ]
|
|
|
Putin said he has a surprise in store in the Black Sea. There is a grand game of chess unfolding in the Caspian region. We shall wait and see how the game unfolds as each party makes its moves. Russia as prolific producers of chess grandmasters will no doubt make considered moves leading to a checkmate in this area. Its truly fascinating to watch and anticipate, admittedly.
|
by Kamau_Ajamu on 07.09.2008 [21:04 ]
|
|
|
...I agree 100%. I'm not one of those who is constantly talking about WWIII. I don't see a world world in the west's best interest. What will be left for them to rule? It just doesn't make sense; besides, like you said, Russia, and I'm sure other nations, have something up their sleeves to nip the neo-cons in the bud!
|
by Invictus on 07.09.2008 [21:20 ]
|
|
|
Yes, as I have said before; the question of first-rate weapons for Iran and Syria is the acid test of Russian independence.
|
by Invictus on 07.09.2008 [21:22 ]
|
|
|
Western regimes don't act in the West's best interests.
They are ZOGs, and act accordingly.
|
by FreePapuaMovement on 07.09.2008 [21:39 ]
|
|
|
With the five US carrier groups steaming to the Middle East also, things could get pretty nasty (how I'd love to see a massive naval shoot-up between the US and Russian navies, especially in the Black Sea). What's clear after the events in Georgia is that the US appears to be losing its intelligence edge. If the Russians were to annihilate the US ships in the Black Sea within 20 minutes, there is very little the US can do, Really. I think the yanks are on a face-saving exercise and Russia might allow them that on this occasion. Of course if the yanks shoot first, Russia will definitely and very quickly destroy them. Wait and see...
|
by FreePapuaMovement on 07.09.2008 [21:51 ]
|
|
|
For the US to build a naval base in Georgia would be an exercise in futility, because they'd get out-manoeuvred by Russia each and every time.
|
by gmmonko on 07.09.2008 [22:34 ]
|
|
|
This will weaken US presence elsewhere and besides that the Russian's should establish or just anchor in front of those US naval bases.
US+NATO=Nonesense.
|
by wholetruth123 on 08.09.2008 [00:28 ]
|
|
|
When the two lions bicker over a dead cow the growl and flash their paws over each other. The sounds and actiion makes people think that one of the lions was on the cow's side.
In fact both lions will eat any cow and are actuall friends over us
|
by Crack_Smoke_Republican on 08.09.2008 [01:36 ]
|
|
|
It is a true test with no looking back.
|
by Kamau_Ajamu on 08.09.2008 [02:04 ]
|
|
|
...I understand what you're saying above, but I’m still of the opinion that it is NOT in the best interest of the West, or their illuminati puppet masters, to start WWIII.
1. They're broke!
2. Militarily, they're overstretched (These two points alone would guarantee defeat).
3. After a defeat, what politico-military prestige they had remaining in the world will have evaporated, never to be seen again: END OF EMPIRE!
4. To nuclear strike at this point in order to draw in others isn't guaranteed as we already see the EU and NATO without the appetite for war at this time, and especially not before Bush leaves office.
5. If they hit anyone with tactical nukes, the atmosphere is already ripe for war crimes against the United Snakes!
6. Speaking of the EU, the only thing they are concentrating on right now is getting heat to their people this winter. They have to eat humble pie and suck up to Russia behind the scenes while showing machismo to the world. The Russians not supplying them with oil or natural gas would almost guarantee the toppling of their governments at best or political upheaval at least, if their populations freeze for any length of time this winter. Are they going to turn to Venezuela for oil and gas? I think you can answer what Hugo Chavez will say. Where, then, will they turn?
7. Israel coming in on the side of the Amerikkkans? Iran, Syria and Lebanon have that covered, besides, who’s to say that Russia doesn't already have subs and other equipment on that side of the world already waiting? The Russians, as quiet as it’s kept, do have a score to settle with Israel for all their meddling and their participation in Georgia.
8. Georgia, Ukraine and the other former Soviet, NATO-loving satellites helping the US against Russia? PLEASE!
9. Amerikkka is already losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and making enemies of yet another neighbor - Pakistan. They have no possible way of getting boots on the ground in Iran (or anywhere else for that matter), and as we already know, air attacks don't win wars! After they're finished with their air assault on Iran, then it's Iran's turn!
10. As I said above, if WWIII happened, who would be left for the West to rule?
There! I just gave you ten (10) good reasons why I don't see any WWIII war happening right now. Might there be a limited war so Bush may try to stay in power or at best prompt the Amerikkkan sheeple to vote for McCain? Maybe, but WWIII, NO WAY!!!
Now once again, I may be wrong, and if I am, I and everyone reading this can only die once, and that's the end of it! But I'm not going to sell my house and bury food stuff in a cave waiting for Armageddon to happen, because I just don’t believe it’s going to happen right now!
|
by Kamau_Ajamu on 08.09.2008 [02:10 ]
|
|
|
...we already see that EVERYTHING Amerikkka puts her hand to do in recent years backfires. They have no good intelligence apparatus, in fact, they are so infiltrated, they might as well put all of their operations on the internet for all to see! Whatever they THINK they have covered intelligence-wise, blows back in their face. Georgia is a perfect example!
|
by Dingo0 on 08.09.2008 [02:51 ]
|
|
|
Constitution forbids others country militar bases. Cuba is by far more interesting, and should be done before Fidel dies.
If US installs a base in caspian, it will be restricted to put more ships than the treaty allows? Turkey has forbidden the income of more US ships ...
|
by cosmo on 08.09.2008 [05:23 ]
|
|
|
protect and mantain the regime of Saashit over and above the point of protecting the pipe line.
|
by TerraHertz on 08.09.2008 [09:44 ]
|
|
|
This is a game in which the object is to make it LOOK like Russia started WWIII by using nukes first.
The Ziofascists Bush & crew MUST have a world war, in order to avoid being sharged with war crimes, tried and executed. Also to prevent the US people blaming them for the impending total economic collapse of the USA, and forming lynch mobs. Also Israel thinks it is in an existential struggle (correctly, though they don't understand their worst enemy is themselves.)
All these people are playing for their lives, and are not going to stop.
They have to have a war, it has to be nuclear (to eliminate Israel's enemies, they think), but they dare not be seen to be the ones that started it. The only slightly credible other potientian starter of WWIII is Russia (think the stupid neocons, though they are oh so wrong, as usual.)
Russia isn't stupid, and won't strike first. But all that is necessary from the ZioNWO point of view, is for Russia to appear (to the MSM-fed idiots of the world) to be in a position where they must respond. The actual 'response' will be provided in the form of a nuclear false flag attack, made to look like Russia did it. This is why the US keeps pushing and pushing, and why Putin makes a point of commenting that Russian response will be calm and considered.
There were strong suggestions during the Georgian 5-day war, that the Bush/neocons were planning on nuking a Georgian city (Gori) and making it look like Russia did it. Thats one thing Venik missed in his nice analysis - he totally omitted the implications of the huge NATO naval armada in and near the Gulf at the time, and the plans for an impending Israeli attack on Iran. They just needed a 'look, they started it first!' event. Russia's very clever timing and tactics sank that plan.
|
by Peter on 08.09.2008 [11:30 ]
|
|
|
there is only one small entrance and exit point into the Black Sea. This I would have thought works more in favour of the Russians than it does the US..am I wrong?
|
by IvanGrozny on 08.09.2008 [14:05 ]
|
|
|
in the whole Russian Navy in distant Venezuela Russia should just REMOVE SAAKASHVILI AND BE DONE WITH IT!
Without Saakashvili Russia could turn Gruzia/Georgia into a Buffer region and a transit route to Armenia.
Without Saakashvili Russia's hands would be on the BTC pipeline switch.
IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?
And I would personally like to see how the US would send ships into the Caspian Sea, since the only way to do this is through Russia's rivers.
|
by Iranian-Shi'ite on 08.09.2008 [14:13 ]
|
|
|
In addition to the confrontational maneuver of building an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, and in addition to the confrontational move of having armed, trained, and pushed Georgia's belligerence, the US is now also building a naval base in Georgia.
So what has the US done in the last several years toward Russia?
1. Spewed insults and rhetoric at Russia.
2. Backed out of the anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
3. Tightened NATO around Russia's neck.
4. Instigated "color revolutions" in areas of Russian interest
5. Instigated Georgian aggressiveness
6. Building naval bases close to Russia.
Russia's response has been very staid. It has been limited to such actions as
1. Selling defensive short-range anti-aircraft TOR-1 missiles to Iran.
2. Selling Sukhoi aircraft to Venezuela.
3. Pushing for milder UN resolutions on Iran.
Putin and Medvedev still behave as if the USA can be reasoned with in a logical and rational manner. Quite clearly, the US only responds to strength and assertion.
In my opinion, Putin and Medvedev have been slow to understand the imperialist, pugnacious, and pathologically narcissistic self-righteous hypocrisy of the USA's world view.
|
by FreePapuaMovement on 08.09.2008 [14:36 ]
|
|
|
The loss of BTC pipeline clearly irks the NWO somewhat. Saakaashvili is clearly under hypnotic mind-control of the NWO - anyone who phones some rabbi in Jerusalem for a blessing in a war has got to be an utter and silly fool whose position as leader of a country must be brought into question....
|
by IvanGrozny on 08.09.2008 [14:58 ]
|
|
|
in the whole Russian Navy in Venezuela. Russia should just REMOVE SAAKASHVILI and make Gruzia/Georgia in a pro-Russian buffer state.
This would give Russia control over the BTC pipeline.
As for the US sending ships into the Caspian Sea, that would be interesting considering all rivers to this sea from the Black Sea go through Russia.
|
by lumpus69 on 08.09.2008 [16:56 ]
|
|
|
This whole matter reminds me so much of the build-up to WW1 ... in this case with the Washington Empire doing all the prodding and niggling - in an obscure part of the world - to provoke widespread war.
NOTE: WW1 was not really a 'world war' at all. It was confined to Europe mainly.
WW2 was not really a 'world war' either, though a lot more countries were involved.
However if it comes about that these provocations in the Black Sea 'balkans' push things into all-out war, then WW3 will be a real world war.
Consider!
The Roman Empire was really quite contained, in global terms.
Even the London Empire did not really live up to the claim that "the Sun never set" on it.
But the Washington Empire has its tentacles everywhere. And so the next war will be global.
I'd like to think that this could be averted, but the pattern of history is consistent that some mob of people (somewhere) just can't help having a go at 'world conquest'.
Hey there was Alexander the Ungreat, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Napolean, Hitler and however many other psychopaths have led the common herd to mass killings ... not least amongst whom are the Bush/Cheney obscenity.
Given the trajectory of humans over the millenia, I don't hold out much hope for averting WW3. But I'd like to be proven wrong.
|
by Seele on 08.09.2008 [17:01 ]
|
|
|
@all
I think Russia should prepare itself for future confrontation with the west in several ways. Most important -> Deliver S-16 & SA-18 man portable AA systems and related stuff en masses to 1st Iran (appx. 2000 pieces), 2nd to Syria an additional (1500 pieces). And better now then later at least the same amount as with Iran to Venezuela ( 2000 pieces ).
Another important item which is a must delivery to all countries but especially to Syria and Iran is the RPG-29V. 6000 pieces of the upgrade version of RPG-7 to each country is an absolute must to secure Russias interests. (For the amount to deliver to Venezuela i m not sure what amount is needed). Whatever advance AA gun and rocketsystems for Iran , Syria and Venezuela are a "must do" i think. Everything else would be unwise I think. ( If it - the delivering - should be done fully open or not is of course another question).
....
|
by lumpus69 on 08.09.2008 [17:10 ]
|
|
|
Thanks to all those who provide the details of what is going on.
I confess to having lost a lot of interest in things in detail and to having succumbed to a sense of the inevitability of things in general, consequent upon what is deeply flawed in our species, e.g. as exampled by imperial ambitions, elitism, aggression, hubris, irrationality, religiosity, nationalism ... oh and the list goes on for how and why we are so collectively destructive, regardless of the few individuals who have counselled differently over the millenia.
Regards, Gerry Hiles
|
by Seele on 08.09.2008 [17:59 ]
|
|
|
As was written in Baath party statement, Baath is asking Russia for militariarly assistance. Of course it would not be wise for Russia to deliver weapons directly to the IR these days.., nevertheless the Baath statement was very interesting. From my perspective it speaks between the lines the following: "We are arab socialist party, we are ideolodically very close to Russia, we are anti-US , you (russia) are enemy of US too, give advanced weapons to us, and we will punish the US adequately and you'll as reward will be granted very good contracts for oil the day US retreats from Iraq.
So the offer is a very interesting and thinkworthy one (also for russia)I think. And as I said, of course direct weapon delivery to IR would politically/tactically not be so clever, but if delivering them to Iran and Syria and advising the governments of these two countries to allow some of the weapons flow into Iraq and Afghanistan then that would - i think - do the trick. US would sink deeper into both conflicts. Iran can allow certain flow of Sa-16 & Sa-18 as well as RPG-29V to its sponsored Iraqi Hezballah Brigades operating in south and south central Iraq, and to the east of Iran allow flow to Afghan Resistance fighters at Iran / Afghanistan border region (Herat province). And Syria could allow flow of weapons to Sunni IR (baath remnants and related groups sunni IR forces). I even think russia should act quickly (as neocons are still in shock over the failure in georgia). The longer it (russia) waits the more time it gives the Neocons to rearm and resupply and secure georgia situation. And not only Georgia. I m sure that the one or the other way US will uparm the Chechen fighters what of course will make Russia army sink in neverending war with extremly high casualty rates on Russia side. (Especially because russia army will be caught in guerilla attacks from Chechnya, to Abchasia/georgia border area, to Southern South Ossetia, Ingushetia, to Dagestan and so on and on). To avoid this unpleasend scenario which would leadi to defeat of russian army it needs russian diplomacy with Chechen people, massive money spending on these regions (especially Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan) and of course the mentioned arms deliveries to countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela in order to keep the US criminal forces and think-tanks busy focusing on other areas then russia border and to always be one step ahead of the Neocon strategic desires. Btw: Also good relation with Turkey will be an absolute 'must do' for Russia in order to turn current situation in full long term advantage, i think.
|
by stоpwar on 08.09.2008 [19:19 ]
|
|
|
if Russia DID start giving the IR weapons? Most of the world was on Iraq's side when USUK invaded.
The original invasion was illegal, so Russia would be helping to see that justice was done. Only problem (ideologically a big one for me) is that it would cause even more needless loss of life.
It is amazing how the world map seems to be changing in front of our very eyes...
|
by FreePapuaMovement on 08.09.2008 [19:29 ]
|
|
|
Tactically that's a great idea, because the MSM (main stream media) would look foolish printing that Iraqis are beating US occupation forces due to Russian weaponry, as you rightly said, it is an illegal war.
Coming back to the topic of the US naval base in Georgia, Russia could allow US to build their naval base. Saakashvili will then be replaced by a pro-Moscow president, who then kicks out the US navy from their brand new base, Result: Russia ends up with a brand new naval base built by the US, courtesy of US taxpayer $...
|
by Seele on 08.09.2008 [20:38 ]
|
|
|
@stopwar
Of course i m supportive to the idea that russia is assisting IR with weapons, but like i said i think that should not be done openly. The reason. Also lots of people know it is a US lie, some still believe the IR = terrorists and that Baath = criminal dictatorship massmurderous party of thugs. That's of course only what US medias have hammered into the heads of the people in USA and Europe, but nonetheless this üpicture exists in enough heads of US andEurope people, that a direct weapon dielivery of russian weapons to IR would ( in the eyes of those brainwashed people ) it would look like Russia is arming "terrorists". And i bet my ass US media will widen, exaggerrat & eexploit such a picture the very moment russia would even talk about "weighting options of weapons delivery to IR". US neocon would see it as "attack on US". What is why I say it wouldn t be wise for russia do it ( at least not that way). But if delivering the weapons e.g. to Iran (a country which has never been attacking one of its todays neighbors) the neocons lack every argumentative base when trying to give reason why russia should not do so. And that's an very interesting weakpoint which russia absolutely needs ( at least in my opinion ) to turn into its advantage. They can deliver to IRan and advise the iranian governement to do this or that with the weapons. More or less the same goes for Syria which to a certain point relies on support of Iran in order to repell possible Israeli ground incursions and air space violations. In both cases russia will have the absolute moral highground, which can t be taken down by the US medial liars machinery. That's the difference. Iran and Syria are states with governments. Iraqis also a state, but Baath party is - of course legitimate government of Iraq - but not currently in power of governmental ministries and positions, and moreover has been labeled "terrorist" and was accepted to by toppled before the eyes of the world ( especially before European eyes ). So delivering weapons to IR would give lets say "expolitable" picture of russias world ambitions before the european zionist bought governments. So that's better avoided in order to not make it too easy for the zionists to run a medial counter-offensive by enabling them to press russia in the "supporting terrorism edge". ->What is why I say open militariarly support of IR via Russia would be stupid as it would allow and even help the neocons to rally more supporters for McCain, and 'pro-liberal' people in Europe to support the neocon doctrines..
|
by Seele on 08.09.2008 [20:51 ]
|
|
|
@stopwar
...but Russia inofficially supporting IR by giving large amounts of the mentioned weapons systems to Iran and Syria, yes, i think that would do the trick ! (And it will earn them lots of money in the long haul, that's for sure now -> after the last Baath party statement. ) At least that s how i see things.
|
by Invictus on 08.09.2008 [20:55 ]
|
|
|
I agree with you that the West is currently not very well placed to fight Russia.
It may well be though, that the Zionists' intention is not for the West to win.
Zionist puppet Churchill fought WW2, knowing that it would doom the British Empire.
It is not yet clear whether Russia is genuinely in a state of revolt against the Zionists; or whether we are being treated to yet another Punch and Judy show, intended to further Zionist (and not "Western") power.
|
by qvh on 09.09.2008 [00:16 ]
|
|
|
Whether it is because they have their man in the form of Medvedev securely ensconced in the Kremlin and smoothing the way for them, or whether Russia's leaders are just weak and confused, is not certain. Nevertheless it is 1-0 to the Jews.
|
by Kamau_Ajamu on 09.09.2008 [02:19 ]
|
|
|
...I understand what you're saying. I concur that the next skirmish may very well be a Zionist effort to rid the US of its "'Empire' ness" just as it is the West's intention to let the Arabs and Israel destroy each other, and you may very well be right that Russia may be a part of a larger smoke & mirror plan, but still keeping in mind that I still don't see a WWIII on the horizon, maybe just a regional skirmish, but not a World War.
|
by LittleHelper on 09.09.2008 [08:26 ]
|
|
|
@qvh
> The Judeo-Zionists have won this round
Nada. What a military advantage would a US naval
base in some Georgian port provide ?
Only 70 miles up the coast of the Black Sea, at
Novorossijsk, Russia is building her new, highly
modern naval port for her Black Sea fleet.
Building an US naval base in Georgia would not
result in any strategic advantage, at best it would
secure the status quo.
Saakashvili might not stay in power for a prolonged
time. Any successor might easily conclude an US
naval base on Georgian soil being too much a burden
for easy and fruitful Georgian-Russian relations.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
