Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US warplanes land in Uzbekistan
Dawn | Sept 22, 2001

Posted on 09/23/2001 9:51:26 AM PDT by Sawdring

TASHKENT, Sept 22: US warplanes have landed in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, as Russian President Vladimir Putin, after an extended silence, voiced readiness to cooperate with US plans to strike Afghanistan - but only after they are approved by the UN security council.

Uzbek military sources said on Saturday that the US jets were stationed just outside the Uzbek capital of Tashkent and were equipped with surveillance devices, presumably aimed at the Taliban.

Uzbek officials had previously denied that they were willing to cooperate with the US in its fight against the Taliban.

Heavily armed US attack helicopters are still stationed on a military base some 40 kilometres east of Tashkent, following joint NATO-Uzbek military exercises in the region this month.

The use of former Soviet bases by Washington has been busily debated in Moscow, which has pronounced itself ready to join a world anti-terrorism campaign, but still worries that NATO forces will permanently root themselves in the lucrative Central Asian region should Russia agree to a joint attack.

In a sign that the two sides were starting to bridge their positions, Putin and US President George W. Bush held a 40-minute telephone consultation on the issue late on Saturday Moscow time, although the Kremlin refused to disclose any details of the talks.

The Russian leader - whose generals have previously refused to grant US troops any access to Central Asian countries labelled by Moscow as the "near abroad" - emerged from a near-silence at his Black Sea retreat to voice a mixed message for Washington.

Putin was further holding late-night consultations on the crisis with his most senior security officials at the Sochi base on Saturday, senior Kremlin sources said.

Earlier, speaking ahead of his Tuesday visit to Berlin, Putin hinted in an interview to Germany's ARD television that while Russia was cautious, it was willing to negotiate a joint response to the terror strikes in the United States. "This does not mean that we cannot discuss such questions together with our partners, think about the possible reaction to the terrorist acts," said Putin in remarks aired nation-wide on Moscow television on Saturday.

Putin said Russia's possible level of participation would be decided "based on the level and character of our partnership with the US and NATO".

These comments coincided with those recently made by senior Russian officials, who claim to have Putin's ear. The officials in private said that Moscow would be willing to offer its full cooperation in a new US war should Russia be accepted as a member of NATO.

The same senior Russian officials have said that NATO discussions were far more important than any debates on US plans to build a missile defence shield, an issue that has been the top priority for talks between Moscow and Washington for months.-AFP


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2001 9:51:26 AM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AGAviator, Aaron_A, ATC, AM2000, Flamefront, Hopalong, Askel5, Rightwing2
Bump!
2 posted on 09/23/2001 9:52:30 AM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
Back in '79, they looked like Communist imperialists. Now, they look like fellow Westerners defending the civilized world against barbarism.
3 posted on 09/23/2001 10:09:51 AM PDT by Man of the Right (We owe the Russians an apology for helping the terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
And so the newest war for oil begins. Soon we will hear nothing about terrorists and a hell of a lot about pipelines and "stability." Bye bye independence, Uzbekistan.
4 posted on 09/23/2001 10:15:56 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
And so the newest war for oil begins. Soon we will hear nothing about terrorists and a hell of a lot about pipelines and "stability." Bye bye independence, Uzbekistan.

Are you saying that Bush is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to take over Uzbekistan? Please clarify what you are saying.

5 posted on 09/23/2001 10:20:15 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
I think he is saying the US, after it bombs Afghanistan, is going to set up another sphere of influence in Central Asia. But I'm just guessing.
6 posted on 09/23/2001 10:25:35 AM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern

Are you saying that Bush is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to take over Uzbekistan? Please clarify what you are saying.

I am saying that when all this blows over about the terrorists, there will remain a need to continue occupying Uzbekistan. Certain US corporate interests have been tyring to get some government muscle into their plans to secure the enormous profit in the oil and gas reserves in the area and to thwart the Russians, who understandably see it in their area of immediate interest. Is it that terribly difficult to see that two things are happening simultaneously here, one we are being told about and one we are not? Don't forget the plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Would be a hell of a lot easier if American puppets, rather than the Taliban, were in power there. Remember the war to pry loose Kosovo from Yugoslavia? It's called oil pipelines, and there obviously is a lot of money in it. But is it worth our soldiers' lives?

7 posted on 09/23/2001 10:26:32 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
I am saying that when all this blows over about the terrorists, there will remain a need to continue occupying Uzbekistan.

Bush plans to have the US Army occupy Uzbekistan? When this does not happen, will you apologize and and admit that you were wrong?

Which side are you on? The Taliban's? Russia's?

8 posted on 09/23/2001 10:34:39 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
There is no link or any clue as to the source of this report. Do you have a link to the source? What is "dawn" which is listed as the source?
9 posted on 09/23/2001 10:42:11 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Please Support President Bush! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
F*ck the U.N.!!
10 posted on 09/23/2001 10:44:29 AM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern

Bush plans to have the US Army occupy Uzbekistan? When this does not happen, will you apologize and and admit that you were wrong?

We're already there, dude.

Go no further than Bush's own ambassador for backing on what I have written:

"William Farish, the American ambassador to Britain and a close friend of President George W Bush, has said US policy advisers are evaluating how best to safeguard American and European interests in the region, including planned pipelines to the vast oil and gas reserves of central Asia.

It may indeed be about terrorism, but baby it sure as hell is about oil.

11 posted on 09/23/2001 10:45:47 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
What is "dawn" which is listed as the source?

I believe DAWN is a Pakistani news site.

12 posted on 09/23/2001 10:46:41 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Back in '79, they looked like Communist imperialists.

Looked like?

13 posted on 09/23/2001 10:48:16 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
(We owe the Russians an apology for helping the terrorists)

We owe them nothing. Ever hear them apologize for helping the North Vietnamese? Sheesh

14 posted on 09/23/2001 10:55:20 AM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
It's called oil pipelines, and there obviously is a lot of money in it. But is it worth our soldiers' lives?

If you're sure about this then buy some stock in the oil companies and get rich. Those evil oil companies are owned by evil small investors everywhere. Good luck!

15 posted on 09/23/2001 10:58:10 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
It just doesn't matter with small brained ones like yourself doe's it? I mean it just simply wouldn't matter why we sent troops to the middle east after all there IS oil there so in your small mind that means that anytimt that the US does anythign in the middle east that it must be about oil. That's like saying we liberated France to gain control of their cheese and wine markets! Grow up!

I bet you have a whole new conspiracy worked up in that tiny little brain of yours where GW had the CIA brainwash some nice innocent muslim immagrants to hijack those planes and fly into the World Trade Center don't you!

Yes there is oil in the mid-east but you know what they say. "To the victor go the spoils!"

PS

If I catch you out in the street spreading your ant-US BullSh!t and burning your little American flag I'm going to stick my foot up your @rse!!!
16 posted on 09/23/2001 11:01:50 AM PDT by Free Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Free Raven

Yes there is oil in the mid-east but you know what they say. "To the victor go the spoils!"

Funny, knuckle-draggers like you used to howl when Clinton sent our armies into harm's way for the benefit of campaign contributors. I don't suppose the term "moral relativism" means anything to you.

17 posted on 09/23/2001 11:06:26 AM PDT by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Hi Zviadist. It's lil' ole me from the Balkan threads. While I don't always agree with everything you post, I find that we agree much more often than not. Your posts always contain fine examples of extended thought.

I've been semi-following some threads that you've been engaged in lately (in between my own jousting at windmills on other threads). Damn boy. You've got stamina. These idiots that have been flushed out of the bushes (please pardon the un-intentional pun. I sweat to God that is was un-intentional, but you gotta admit that it's not bad, eh?) since 9/11 are extremely disheartening. Do you think we're doing any good?

18 posted on 09/23/2001 11:21:53 AM PDT by getoffmylawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
It may indeed be about terrorism, but baby it sure as hell is about oil.

Everything in that part of the world is at least partially about oil. However, I object to the implication that Bush is sending US troops to Uzbekistan as a trick to occupy that country.

Afganistan is a landlocked country and it is necessary to attack it from surrounding countries like Uzbekistan. The Uzbecks have been kind enough to allow us to operate from their country because they don't like the Taliban either.

In any case, from what I understand, Uzbekistan is not entirely independent. It is still in the Russian sphere of influence and it does pretty much what the Russians tell it to do in military matters.

I would be VERY suprised if an American fighting force were to remain stationed in Uzbekistan after this is over.

19 posted on 09/23/2001 11:24:30 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn, zviadist
a couple more 'know it-alls'! LOL!!

we're also going to drill in 'anwar'.

20 posted on 09/23/2001 11:31:04 AM PDT by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson