s1 761 bases militaires américaines dans le monde, et personne n'en parle

 

From: melusine

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:22 PM

To: sortir de l europe

Subject: The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bruno DRWESKI

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:23 PM

Subject: tr: FW: The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet

> Message du 16/09/08 07:00
> De : "cc cc"
> Objet : FW: 761 bases militaires américaines dans   le monde, et personne n'en parle
> 
> > Les mass media occidentaux tapent continuellement sur les Russes, leur
> > reprochant principalement de vouloir reconstituer leur ancien empire (alors
> > que la Georgie et l¹Ukraine sont sans doute plus russes que la Californie et
> > l¹Alaska ne sont américains). Or les Etats Unis auraient 761 bases militaires
> > dans le monde. Et cela sans que le peuple américain ne le sache. Les mass media n¹en parlent pas.
> > Les Américains exploitent à fond l¹idée du terrorisme qu¹ils ont créée. Il
> > suffit qu¹on leur annonce l¹existence d¹un terroriste quelque part dans le
> > monde pour qu¹ils se sentent autorisés d¹y lâcher des bombes ou d¹y envoyer
> > une équipe de tueurs.
> > 
> >  The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk
> > About It 
> >
> > It must be understood that none of this world conquest effort has anything to
> > do with the welfare of America or the American people. It is purely a
> > money-power grab, utilizing the American people and their resources to finance
> > and man the undertaking, along with whatever other nationals might be suckered
> > in.  Such a project requires lots of manpower and this country has bred up a
> > bunch.  America did enjoy a measure of Freedom, but only for about ten years,
> > until re-controlled by The City and our 1787 ConJob.  It all started big-time
> > with WW1, which itself first required the establishment of the Federal Reserve
> > in order to enslave the American people to permanently finance world chaos and
> > control.  Of course such a project will ultimately bankrupt its undertakers,
> > and that is what we are now seeing in the daily news.
> > Best regards,. Bob Taft The Taft Ranch Upton, Wyoming (307) 465-2206
> > http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=74897 "We hang the petty
> > thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." Aesop From: William
> > Brumbaugh < mailto:mrproactive@frii.com <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> >  Sent:
> > Monday, September 15, 2008 1:40 PM To: Proactivelist <
> > mailto:proactivelist@proactive.talklist.com
> > <mailto:proactivelist@proactive.talklist.com> >  Subject: The US Has 761
> > Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
> >
> > The Proactive News - Host Bill Brumbaugh Story Links
> > ============================================
> > http://www.alternet.org/audits/97913/the_us_has_761_military_bases_across_the_
> > planet%2C_and_we_simply_never_talk_about_it/?page=entire
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------- The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never
> > Talk About It By Tom Engelhardt < http://www.alternet.org/authors/837/
> > <http://www.alternet.org/authors/837/> > , Tomdispatch.com <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com <http://www.tomdispatch.com/> > . Posted September
> > 8, 2008 <
> > http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&date%5BY%5D=2008&d
> > ate%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/
> > <http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&date%5BY%5D=2008&
> > amp;amp;date%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/>
> > <http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5BF%5D=09&amp;date%5BY%5D=2
> > 008&date%5Bd%5D=08&act=Go/>  > .
> > America garrison the globe in ways that really are unprecedented, and yet, if
> > you live in the United States, you basically wouldn't know it. Here it is, as
> > simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively
> > few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether
> > with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In
> > startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay
> > interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built
> > to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns
> > (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating
> > bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often
> > American equipment does -- carefully stored for further use at tiny
> > "cooperative security locations," known informally as "lily pads" (from which
> > U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in
> > crisis). At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37
> > major military bases <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html> >
> > scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the
> > British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how
> > you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact,
> > there are 761 <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.h
> > tml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html> >  active military "sites" abroad.
> > The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on
> > the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers
> > which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an
> > American town -- are functionally floating bases.
> > And here's the other half of that simple truth: We don't care to know about
> > it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the
> > Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
> > Now, that's the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that's more than you care
> > to know, stop here.
> > Where the Sun Never Sets
> > Let's face it, we're on an imperial bender and it's been a long, long night.
> > Even now, in the wee hours, the Pentagon continues <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174936
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174936> >  its massive expansion of recent
> > years; we spend militarily as if there were no tomorrow; we're still building
> > bases as if the world were our oyster; and we're still in denial. Someone
> > should phone the imperial equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous.
> > But let's start in a sunnier time, less than two decades ago, when it seemed
> > that there would be many tomorrows, all painted red, white, and blue. Remember
> > the 1990s when the U.S. was hailed -- or perhaps more accurately, Washington
> > hailed itself -- not just as the planet's "sole superpower" or even its unique
> > "hyperpower," but as its "global policeman," the only cop on the block? As it
> > happened, our leaders took that label seriously and our central police
> > headquarters, that famed five-sided building in Washington D.C, promptly began
> > dropping police stations -- aka military bases -- in or near the oil
> > heartlands of the planet (Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) after
> > successful wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf.
> >
> >  < http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844672573/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844672573/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > As
> > those bases multiplied, it seemed that we were embarking on a new, post-Soviet
> > version of "containment." With the USSR gone, however, what we were containing
> > grew a lot vaguer and, before 9/11, no one spoke its name. Nonetheless, it
> > was, in essence, Muslims who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands
> > of the planet.
> > Yes, for a while we also kept intact our old bases from our triumphant
> > mega-war against Japan and Germany, and then the stalemated "police action" in
> > South Korea (1950-1953) -- vast structures which added up to something like an
> > all-military American version of the old British Raj. According to the
> > Pentagon, we still have a total <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/pentagon-base-stats.html> >
> > of 124 bases in Japan, up to 38 <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1112/chalmers_johnson_on_imperial_rights
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1112/chalmers_johnson_on_imperial_rights> >
> > on the small island of Okinawa, and 87 in South Korea. (Of course, there were
> > setbacks. The giant bases we built in South Vietnam were lost in 1975, and we
> > were peaceably ejected
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/filipinos-gis-pentagon.html>
> > from our major bases in the Philippines in 1992.) But imagine the hubris
> > involved in the idea of being "global policeman" or "sheriff" and marching
> > into a Dodge City that was nothing less than Planet Earth itself. Naturally,
> > with a whole passel of bad guys out there, a global "swamp" to be "drained," <
> > http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175599,00.html
> > <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175599,00.html> >  as key Bush
> > administration officials loved to describe it post-9/11, we armed ourselves to
> > kill, not stun. And the police stations Well, they were often something to
> > behold -- and they still are.
> > Let's start with the basics: Almost 70 years after World War II, the sun is
> > still incapable of setting on the American "empire of bases" -- in Chalmers
> > Johnson's phrase <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_on_garrisoning_the_plane
> > t
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_on_garrisoning_the_plan
> > et> >  -- which at this moment stretches from Australia to Italy, Japan to
> > Qatar, Iraq to Colombia, Greenland to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia,
> > Rumania to Okinawa. And new bases of various kinds are going up all the time
> > (always with rumors <http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10231099.html>  of
> > more to come). For instance, an American missile system is slated to go into
> > Poland and a radar system into Israel. That will mean Americans stationed in
> > both countries and, undoubtedly, modest bases of one sort or another to go
> > with them. (The Israeli one -- "the first American base on Israeli territory"
> > -- reports <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1015879.html>  Aluf Benn of
> > Haaretz, will be in the Negev desert.)
> > There are 194 countries < http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
> > <http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm> >  on the planet (more or less), and
> > officially 39 of them have American "facilities," large and/or small. But
> > those are only the bases the Pentagon officially acknowledges. Others simply
> > aren't counted <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.h
> > tml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html> > , either because, as in the case of Jordan, a country finds it
> > politically preferable not to acknowledge such bases; because, as in the case
> > of Pakistan, the American military shares bases that are officially Pakistani;
> > or because bases in war zones, no matter how elaborate, somehow don't count.
> > In other words, that 39 figure doesn't even include Iraq or Afghanistan. By
> > 2005, according to the Washington Post, there were 106 American bases in Iraq,
> > ranging from tiny outposts to mega-bases like Balad Air Base and the ill-named
> > Camp Victory that house tens of thousands of troops, private contractors,
> > Defense Department civilians, have bus routes, traffic lights, PXes, big name
> > fast-food restaurants, and so on.
> > Some of these bases are, in effect, "American towns" on foreign soil. In
> > Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base, previously used by the Soviets in their
> > occupation of the country, is the largest and best known. There are, however,
> > many more, large and small, including Kandahar Air Base, located in what was
> > once the unofficial capital of the Taliban, which even has a full-scale hockey
> > rink <
> > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/08/28/186498.aspx
> > <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/08/28/186498.asp
> > x> >  (evidently for its Canadian contingent of troops).
> >
> > You would think that all of this would be genuine news, that the establishment
> > of new bases would regularly generate significant news stories, that books by
> > the score would pour out on America's version of imperial control. But here's
> > the strange thing: We garrison the globe in ways that really are -- not to put
> > too fine a point on it -- unprecedented, and yet, if you happen to live in the
> > United States, you basically wouldn't know it; or, thought about another way,
> > you wouldn't have to know it.
> > In Washington, our garrisoning of the world is so taken for granted that no
> > one seems to blink when billions go into a new base in some exotic, embattled,
> > war-torn land. There's no discussion, no debate at all. News about bases
> > abroad, and Pentagon basing strategy, is, at best, inside-the-fold stuff,
> > meant for policy wonks and news jockeys. There may be no subject more taken
> > for granted in Washington, less seriously attended to, or more deserving of
> > coverage.
> > Missing Bases
> > Americans have, of course, always prided themselves on exporting "democracy,"
> > not empire. So empire-talk hasn't generally been an American staple and,
> > perhaps for that reason, all those bases prove an awkward subject to bring up
> > or focus too closely on. When it came to empire-talk in general, there was a
> > brief period after 9/11 when the neoconservatives, in full-throated triumph,
> > began to compare us to Rome and Britain at their imperial height (though we
> > were believed to be incomparably, uniquely more powerful). It was, in the
> > phrase of the time, a "unipolar moment." Even liberal war hawks started
> > talking about taking up "the burden" of empire or, in the phrase of Michael
> > Ignatieff, now a Canadian politician but, in that period, still at Harvard and
> > considered a significant American intellectual, "empire lite." <
> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2003/0110empirelite.htm
> > <http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2003/0110empirelite.htm> >
> > On the whole, however, those in Washington and in the media haven't considered
> > it germane to remind Americans of just exactly how we have attempted to
> > "police" and control the world these last years. I've had two modest
> > encounters with base denial myself:
> > In the spring of 2004, a journalism student I was working with emailed me a
> > clip, dated October 20, 2003 -- less than seven months after American troops
> > entered Baghdad -- from a prestigious engineering magazine. It quoted Lt. Col.
> > David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq,
> > speaking proudly of the several billion dollars <
> > http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp
> > <http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp> >  ("the
> > numbers are staggering") that had already been sunk into base construction in
> > that country. Well, I was staggered anyway. American journalists, however,
> > hardly noticed, even though significant sums were already pouring into a
> > series of mega-bases that were clearly meant to be permanent fixtures on the
> > Iraqi landscape. (The Bush administration carefully avoided
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/permanent-iraq-presence.html>
> > using the word "permanent" in any context whatsoever, and these bases were
> > first dubbed "enduring camps.")
> >
> > Within two years, according to the Washington Post <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR200505210061
> > 1_pf.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR20050521006
> > 11_pf.html> >  (in a piece that, typically, appeared on page A27 of the
> > paper), the U.S. had those 106 bases in Iraq at a cost that, while unknown,
> > must have been staggering indeed. Just stop for a moment and consider that
> > number: 106. It boggles the mind, but not, it seems, American newspaper or TV
> > journalism.
> > TomDispatch.com has covered this subject <
> > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/59774/a_permanent_basis_for_withdrawal_
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/59774/a_permanent_basis_for_withdrawal_> >
> > regularly ever since, in part because these massive "facts on the ground,"
> > these modern Ziggurats < http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944
> > <http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944> > , were clearly evidence of the Bush
> > administration's long-term plans and intentions in that country. Not
> > surprisingly, this year, U.S. negotiators finally offered the Iraqi government
> > of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki its terms for a so-called status of forces
> > agreement, evidently initially demanding the right to occupy <
> > http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/12/9578/
> > <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/12/9578/> >  into the distant
> > future 58 of the bases it has built.
> > It has always been obvious -- to me, at least -- that any discussion of Iraq
> > policy in this country, of timelines or "time horizons," <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR200807180130
> > 8.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR20080718013
> > 08.html> >  drawdowns or withdrawals, made little sense if those giant facts
> > on the ground weren't taken into account. And yet you have to search the U.S.
> > press carefully to find any reporting on the subject, nor have bases played
> > any real role in debates in Washington or the nation over Iraq policy.
> > I could go further: I can think of two intrepid American journalists, Thomas
> > Ricks <
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR200602030299
> > 4_pf.html
> > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR20060203029
> > 94_pf.html> >  of the Washington Post and Guy Raz <
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15184773
> > <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15184773> >  of NPR, who
> > actually visited a single U.S. mega-base, Balad Air Base, which reputedly has
> > a level of air traffic similar to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's
> > Heathrow, and offered substantial reports on it. But, as far as I know, they,
> > like the cheese of children's song, stand alone. I doubt that in the last five
> > years Americans tuning in to their television news have ever been able to see
> > a single report from Iraq that gave a view of what the bases we have built
> > there look like or cost. Although reporters visit them often enough and, for
> > instance, have regularly offered reports from Camp Victory in Baghdad on
> > what's going on in the rest of Iraq, the cameras never pan away from the
> > reporters to show us the gigantic base itself.
> > More than five years after ground was broken for the first major American base
> > in Iraq, this is, it seems to me, a remarkable record of media denial.
> > American bases in Afghanistan have generally experienced a similar fate.
> > My second encounter with base denial came in my other life. When not running
> > TomDispatch.com, I'm a book editor < http://www.americanempireproject.com/
> > <http://www.americanempireproject.com/> > ; to be more specific, I'm Chalmers
> > Johnson's editor. I worked on the prophetic Blowback: The Costs and
> > Consequences of American Empire <
> > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805075593/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805075593/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > ,
> > which was published back in 2000 to a singular lack of attention -- until, of
> > course, the attacks of 9/11, after which it became a bestseller, adding both
> > "blowback" and the phrase "unintended consequences" to the American lexicon.
> > By the time The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the
> > Republic < http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805077979/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20
> > <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805077979/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> > , the
> > second volume in his Blowback Trilogy, came out in 2004, reviewers, critics,
> > and commentators were all paying attention. The heart of that book focused on
> > how the U.S. garrisons the planet, laying out Pentagon basing policies and
> > discussing specific bases in remarkable detail. This represented serious
> > research and breakthrough work, and the book indeed received much attention
> > here, including major, generally positive reviews. Startlingly, however, not a
> > single mainstream review, no matter how positive, paid any attention, or even
> > really acknowledged, his chapters on the bases, or bothered to discuss the
> > U.S. as a global garrison state. Only three years later did a major reviewer
> > pay the subject serious attention. When Jonathan Freedland reviewed <
> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251 <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20251>
> > >  Nemesis, the final book in the Trilogy, in the New York Review of Books, he
> > noticed the obvious and, in a discussion of U.S. basing policy, wrote, for
> > instance:
> >
> > "Johnson is in deadly earnest when he draws a parallel with Rome.  He swats
> > aside the conventional objection that, in contrast with both Romans  and
> > Britons, Americans have never constructed colonies abroad. Oh, but they  have,
> > he says; it's just that Americans are blind to them. America is an  'empire of
> > bases,' he writes, with a network of vast, hardened military  encampments
> > across the earth, each one a match for any Roman or Raj outpost."
> >
> > Not surprisingly, Freedland is not an American journalist, but a British one
> > who works for the Guardian.
> > In the U.S., military bases really only matter, and so make headlines, when
> > the Pentagon attempts to close some of the vast numbers of them scattered
> > across this country. Then, the fear of lost jobs and lost income in local
> > communities leads to headlines and hubbub.
> > Of course, millions of Americans know about our bases abroad firsthand. In
> > this sense, they may be the least well kept secrets on the planet. American
> > troops, private contractors, and Defense Department civilian employees all
> > have spent extended periods of time on at least one U.S. base abroad. And yet
> > no one seems to notice the near news blackout on our global bases or consider
> > it the least bit strange.
> > The Foreshortened American Century
> > In a nutshell, occupying the planet, base by base, normally simply isn't news.
> > Americans may pay no attention and yet, of course, they do pay. It turns out
> > to be a staggeringly expensive process for U.S. taxpayers. Writing of a major
> > 2004 Pentagon global base overhaul (largely aimed at relocating many of them
> > closer to the oil heartlands of the planet), Mike Mechanic of Mother Jones
> > magazine online points out <
> > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep-bush-rumsfeld.ht
> > ml
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep-bush-rumsfeld.h
> > tml> >  the following: "An expert panel convened by Congress to assess the
> > overseas basing realignment put the cost at $20 billion, counting indirect
> > expenses overlooked by the Pentagon, which had initially budgeted one-fifth
> > that amount."
> >
> > And that's only the most obvious way Americans pay. It's hard for us even to
> > begin to grasp just how military (and punitive) is the face that the U.S. has
> > presented to the world, especially during George W. Bush's two terms in
> > office. (Increasingly, that same face is also presented to Americans. For
> > instance, as Paul Krugman indicated recently
> > <http://www.truthout.org/article/john-dont-go> , the civilian Federal
> > Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] has been so thoroughly wrecked these last
> > years that significant planning for the response to Hurricane Gustav fell on
> > the shoulders of the military's Bush-created U.S. Northern Command.)
> > In purely practical terms, though, Americans are unlikely to be able to
> > shoulder forever the massive global role the Pentagon and successive
> > administrations have laid out for us. Sooner or later, cutbacks will come and
> > the sun will slowly begin to set on our base-world abroad.
> > In the Cold War era, there were, of course, two "superpowers," the lesser of
> > which disappeared in 1991 after a lifespan of 74 years. Looking at what seemed
> > to be a power vacuum across the Bering Straits, the leaders of the other power
> > prematurely declared themselves triumphant in what had been an epic struggle
> > for global hegemony. It now seems that, rather than victory, the second
> > superpower was just heading for the exit far more slowly.
> > As of now, "the American Century," birthed by Time/Life publisher Henry Luce
> > in 1941, has lasted but 67 years. Today, you have to be in full-scale denial
> > not to know that the twenty-first century -- whether it proves to be the
> > Century of Multipolarity, the Century of China, the Century of Energy, or the
> > Century of Chaos -- will not be an American one. The unipolar moment is
> > already so over and, sooner or later, those mega-bases and lily pads alike
> > will wash up on the shores of history, evidence of a remarkable fantasy of a
> > global Pax Americana.
> > Not that you're likely to hear much about this in the run-up to November 4th
> > in the U.S. Here, fantasy reigns in both parties where a relatively upbeat
> > view of our globally dominant future is a given, and will remain so, no matter
> > who enters the White House in January 2009. After all, who's going to run for
> > president not on the idea that "it's morning again in America," but on the
> > recognition that it's the wee small hours of the morning, the bender is
> > ending, and the hangover Well, it's going to be a doozy.
> > Better take some B vitamins and get a little sleep. The world's probably not
> > going to look so great by the dawn's early light.
> > [Note on Sources: It's rare indeed that the U.S. empire of bases gets anything
> > like the attention it deserves, so, when it does, praise is in order. Mother
> > Jones online has just launched a major project to map out and analyze U.S.
> > bases worldwide. It includes a superb new piece on bases by Chalmers Johnson,
> > "America's Unwelcome Advances"
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/chalmers-johnson-on-pentagon.
> > html>   and a number of other top-notch pieces, including one
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/iraq-sofas.html>   on "How to
> > Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years" by TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan (the
> > second part of whose Pentagon expansion series will be posted at this site
> > soon). Check out the package of pieces at MJ by clicking here
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/mission-creep.html> . Perhaps
> > most significant, the magazine has produced an impressive online interactive
> > map of U.S. bases worldwide. Check it out by clicking here
> > <http://www.motherjones.com/military-maps/> . But when you zoom in on an
> > individual country, do note that the first base figures you'll see are the
> > Pentagon's and so possibly not complete. You need to read the MJ texts below
> > each map to get a fuller picture. As will be obvious, if you click on the
> > links in this post, I made good use of MJ's efforts, for which I offer many
> > thanks.]  
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------- To subscribe, send an email (and cash, check, or Money order of $5
> > or more  or click on my name in Paypal)[(mrproactive@frii.com
> > <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> )] & email mrproactive@frii.com <
> > mailto:mrproactive@frii.com <mailto:mrproactive@frii.com> >  saying subscribe.
> > William Brumbaugh                               36067 WCR 27
> > Eaton, CO.  80615                   http://www.proactivenews.com
> > Phone: 970-454-2346
> >
> >
> > ------ Fin du message transféré
>
>