unlike Russia.

Yemen Houthis take over U.S.-trained special forces base in Sanaa

SANAA - Armed men from Yemen's newly dominant Houthi group took over a special forces army base in the capital Sanaa early on Wednesday, soldiers there said.

The clashes, which lasted around six hours, started late on Tuesday when Houthis shelled the camp with heavy weapons, soldiers from the camp said. At least 10 people were killed.

The troops had been trained and equipped by the United States as an elite counterterrorism unit during the rule of ex-president Ali Abullah Saleh, who was ousted by Arab Spring protests in 2011, military sources told Reuters.

Houthi militiamen seized Sanaa in September, eventually leading President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi to flee to Aden this week where he seeks to set up a rival center of power.

http://www.todayonline.com/world/yemen-houthis-take-over-special-forces-army-camp-sanaa

A top 10 corrupt government did allow us to do operations there but the Houthis who threw them out now took out Special Forces base. They also share the same enemy the US does - AQAP so I'm not sure how they will feel about "drone airstrikes" in the future.

Army is begging for more money because they need 5,000 more special forces

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/02/23/army-special-operations/23304113/

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles." - Smedley Butler prior to Pear Harbor.

why are you posting things that are not true?

There is several known bases in Germany, Korea, Japan, Kuwait. Also a base at NATO headquarters. A US military base or a very low profile base like the ones Yemen took control of would seem strange in Somalia but wouldn't doubt. Given that corruption took the place of power vacuum & its strategic location importance -- it wouldn't surprise me. US does a lot of "provoking".

if the map is of NATO bases I didn't realize, but wouldn't an addition of US military bases to the NATO bases argue the same point?

I think you knew that and got caught posting false information trying to pass it off as real. Why not edit and remove that picture now that you know it is wrong?

Korea & Japan would show I meant US troops. In hindsight I did say NATO Headquarters but I don't even know if the US has a base there or not. On my way of the Army, someone in my unit was being reassigned in the Netherlands which he told me was NATO headquarters or that was his assignment as he told me. There was also someone in our battalion who was stationed in Washington DC as a Marine at-the-time, who saluted Bill Clinton. I'm not familiar with how these high profile assignments work.

I wasn't trying to argue a start a war with NATO point but more of the Smedley Butler "war games" close to Japan's shore point.

And why a pro-Putin trolls allowed to rampage on this site. Everyone sees, the American left included, obvious and opportunistic escalation on Russia's part.
They are more than playing the game and its one thats counter to the interests of many posting here.

When any party wages hybrid warfare while lowering the bar for, and even imply the proactive use of, nuclear weapons while invading other countries...well...I expect Liberals and Progressives oppose that in no uncertain terms, as with G.W.B.

Besides, its not simple jingoism to stand up to a bully that would harm our and our allies interest. Besides, Putins no leftist or communist - he's a Russian Imperialist - and thats arguably worse than an American Imperialist from what I see.

Who "Our" is is undefined, but it could be the US. US has bases in Korea and Japan in addition to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Furthermore NATO by the actual treaty setting up NATO is always commanded by an American. Other positions are reserved for officers of other countries (For example the English Channel is under the Command of a UK Admiral). Thus to say the USE of the NATO symbol means these are NOT bases under the control of the US is ridiculous. NATO is under the command of the US, its commander must not only be approved by the other NATO countries but MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE US SENATE.

Thus NATO is in many ways an extension of the US and thus using the NATO symbol instead of the US Flag means very little in reality. Thus that map is "False" if you want to separate NATO and its command structure (headed by an American subject to US Senate Confirmation) from the US Department of Defense, who leaders including the Joint Chiefs of Staff are also subject to confirmation by the US Senate. On the other hand in something called the "Real World" given the structure of NATO and how its commander is picked, there is no real difference between NATO and the US.

Now, the US like all of the NATO countries can keep military forces outside the NATO command structure. Britain and France did this during the Cold War, Germany started to do so after the collapse of the Soviet Union (During the Cold War ALL Germans Forces were attached to NATO and thus under US Command).

Saying that, we are concentrating on NATO and the use of its Symbol instead of the US Flag. Given the nature of NATO using its symbol instead of the US Flag means nothing. It is the US that controls NATO, it is the US that has full use of NATO Bases in Turkey, Italy and Germany. It is US forces that can fly out of Pakistan, Korea and Japan. You are making to much of the us of NATO symbol instead of the reality behind that symbol. In Reality the map contains no REAL falsehood. It shows where US forces can use BASES as part of the containment policy against the old Soviet Union. These bases should have been closed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, for the US does NOT need them to CONTAIN RUSSIA, but the US does need them to CONTROL RUSSIA.

Putin knows what is up (and if he does not he should be replaced). The modern world is NOT Controlled by who has the largest military force, but who controls energy. The US control of energy has been on the decline since the US STOPPED being a net exporter of oil in 1969. The US is now producing less coal (in terms of BTU) then it has since the 1980s.

Side note: US Coal production in terms of British Thermal Units (BTUs) peaked in 1998. Since that time Eastern Bituminous coal production has dropped and replaced by Western subbituminous and lignite coal production. The western coal has half or less energy content per ton then Eastern Bituminous Coal (Which in term has less energy Content then Anthracite coal from Eastern Pennsylvania, Anthracite has been in decline in production since the 1940s). Thus the US is mining more coal if you measure it by tons, but less coal if you look at the BTU content of the coal being mined. Now Fracking has increased US Oil and Natural Gas production over the last 10 years, but that is expected to enter a sharp decline starting in 2017, through that may be delayed do to the drop in the price of oil that is making drilling such wells unprofitable.

Russia is the largest exported of oil and Natural Gas and thus Europe is dependent on Russia. In many ways US foreign policy since the 1970s has been to undermine that dependency for people go with their energy source over any other reasons to support a country (This Germany and Poland have been reluctant to impose sanctions of Russia, fearing what would happen if Putin just cut off their gas taps). Russian Oil and Natural Gas is Putin's most feared weapon, not his nuclear arsenal or his troops. The US wants to undermine that weapon and will do all it can to do so. The US support for the Ukraine, where the pipeline to Poland and Germany goes through, appears to be driven by this desire, i.e. show Poland and Germany to depend on other sources of energy for Russia is unreliable. At the same time the other sources are all more expensive then Russian Natural Gas and oil.

Thus the real fight is over Natural Gas to Europe, shall it be Qatar Natural Gas, Iranian Natural Gas or Russian Natural Gas (Fracked gas from the US is also mentioned)? Russian is the cheapest, Iran is next, can shipped through the proposed gas pipeline through Turkey. Qatar is what the US wants for Qatar is controlled by Saudi Arabia, but Syria and Iraq (Both allied with Iran and Russia) stands in the way. Yes Syria and the Ukraine are related and it alls ties in with where Western Europe will get its Natural Gas. Natural Gas by pipeline is 1/3 cheaper then by ship for its takes 1/3 of the energy content of Natural Gas to compress Natural Gas into a Liquid form to be shipped by tanker, thus US fracked Natural Gas can be competitive, if the price stays up, but if the price of Natural Gas in Europe or Asia drops, the US Gas is NOT competitive.

Lets get real the fight is over who supplies the Natural Gas for Europe and Asia, the US wants it to be Qatar and the US, but Russia and Iran can underprice Qatar and still make a HUGE profit. Putin knows this and is doing his best to fight that war more then any actual fighting in the Ukraine.

with a US flag on each base. I have no problem with that. My guess is someone on the internet has already made one and it wouldn't be hard to find.

I'm not talking about Russia and what is going on in Ukraine, I'm talking about how misleading the map you post over and over again is.

The US base in South Korea has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with North Korea that has an army of 1.2 million soldiers compared to about half that in South Korea. South Korea has a population of 48 million of which 23.5 million live in Gyeonggi-do province, Incheon, and Seoul. Those 23.5 million (including myself) live within 150 km of the border with North Korea. The area that I am referencing could be leveled by artillery from the other side of the border.

So every time you post it I'm going to continue to call bs.

Manas and the other airbases in Central Asia are used by ISAF for logistics related to Afghanistan. The map also seems to list Al-Udeid in Qatar, which the Qatari government has opened up to ISAF, MNF, and NATO for Iraq and Afghanistan.

So basically, a lot of those bases on that map are neither US nor NATO.

And good for the US for standing with Estonia.

Maybe your forgot.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

said: "At least they did not enter another sovereign nation, unlike Russia". The poster created the analogy, not me. Thanks for playing...

The U.S. is allowed to do it and no problem right? Ok, got it.

without the permission of that country. The US has permission to establish a base in a lot of countries. Russia does not have permission of Ukraine to enter that country. Totally different situation.
Russia is sending equipment and soldiers to help a rebellion in Ukraine's eastern area. Like if Mexican troops showed up in South Texas to help out the Republic of Texas secessionists rebel against the US government.

An argument can be made about Afghanistan because of 9/11 but not Iraq. Wed have continued to attack targets inside of Pakistan without permission.

The official story goes, it was "criminals".

Russia had EVERY opportunity to talk his neighbours into a new international alliance, be it a military alliance like Nato, a political alliance like EU, an economic alliance like the Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia, Kasachstan, Kirgisistan, Russia, Belarus) or a toothless paper-tiger like the Arabic League.

And the Baltic states rather joined Nato. They are sovereign nations! They can do what they want!

EU made several demands for Ukraine (which isn't supported by the majority of the population when it is presented as an 'either' 'or' question) They even created a brand new 2004 constitution for them but the trade deal hit a wall over their demand to release a "political prisoner" which many in the very corrupt Ukraine country exists but the one the EU took the cause of was the release of the "Oil Princess" who happened to be a very strong pro West alliance advocate. Eventually he said fuck it, went with a trade deal with Russia (a smoke bomb was thrown in the room at the signing) which he was thrown out after a Parliament voted in recently in "early elections" (you'd be surprised how many "early elections" Ukraine has had since 1991, imagine Bush taking power and calling for early elections of Senate majority Democrats) & political coalitions which are pro west & Russia isolationists took power.

As far economic alliances, Russia had long term economic alliances with Ukraine. That trade deal with Russia was also an extension of their treaty from 2017-2022. There are Russian gas pipelines underneath Ukraine pumping oil to countries so Western Europe so they can buy their gas. Germany is a major trade partner with Russia for instance. Russia is out there actively recruiting & forming military & political alliances. They are a major geopolitical game changer

That maybe was true -- the phone call but since they were less fussy with their demands & apparently all it took was a phone call I can see why I saw it was preferred option. There is no reason why trade couldn't continue & probably still does and if it does, than trade sanctions harm Ukraine more because the need for a trade deal, IMF extortion funds, is because their economy is in shambles.

So a president negotiates a deal for 3 years, then 3 days before he is to go to a conference to sign it he receives a phone call from the president of another country saying that the agreement is really not in the interest of this other country. Would you please not sign it.

Where was this phone call for the previous 3 years? Maybe the previous Russian president, Medvedev, did not care as much about what Ukraine did or didn't do, but Putin had returned to the presidency in 2012 so he had a year to exchange phone calls. Perhaps Yanukovich was playing hard ball with Putin by pretending to go with the EU just to get Putin to improve Russia's trade offer. Or perhaps Putin made Yanukovich an offer that is one of those that "you just cannot refuse".

And if the 'offer' made during this phone call was the obvious "preferred option" (if Yanukovich had won a bluff with Putin to get a great offer from the latter) it should have been easy to explain to the Ukrainian people. Yanukovich had to know that switching deals at the last moment was going to raise questions with the Ukrainian public who thought his EU negotiations were consistent with his campaign pledges.

that is all I have left to say there.

We could speculate wildly all over the place given Ukraine & Russia are the top 2 most corrupt countries in Europe.

Symbolic, yes, but it still carries a message

how dare Russia have its border so close to Estonia!