Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

How would you like to have romanian bases in america?

It is not logical that in time of peace we request some other country to send their military and build BASES on our teritory. This way we'll become their puppets, and the terrorsits will have one many more reasns to bomb us!

And I don't want that!

Posted

As far as I know the USA is the only power that has Military Bases in other countries.  And yes, Your not alone in wondering why.  in the past 10 years, in the middle east as well as in eastern europe the USA has been on a base building spree.    (Did you even know that the USA even has nuclear weapons store in Missle silo's in some of these bases?... )

There are several "why's" that are easy to answer.

Moving a military force around the world is expensive and time consuming.  So having a force close by to potential conflict acts as both a deterrent as well as a fast response force.  So having those bases is good for those countries, because only an idiot would attack a country that was 'protected' by the USA.  Defeat would be guaranteed.  (Did you know that one of the best tanks in the world the M1 was 1st used in combat in the 1991 gulf war, but was nearly 11 years old by that time.  That tank is very heavy and hard to move across the world in a quick fashion.  The USA deployed some 1,800 M1's in the 1991 war, and only lost 18 of them.  Granted the USA is now designing faster lighter tanks, but it will be several years before those are in production - Of particular interest - is that after the 1991 gulf war, Saudia Arabia has purchased 315 of these, Kuwait 218, and Egypt has 777 of them)

Second, having those bases in other countries gives anti-usa extremests something other than the actual USA to target.  Its easier to attack a US interest 1000 miles away than it is to one that's 10,000 miles away.

You also have to remember prior to the world war, the USA really didn't have a standing armed force, per say.  If in a time of peace then no large force is required, wait until a time of war to ramp up.  Recall the history of the Pentagon.  The USA built the structure as a war headquarters, and planned to "Store files in it" after the war was over.  (Obviously this didn't happen) So the concept of building a military force as required isn't practial any more.  Smaller countries that have no significant standing army really couldn't build a meaningful army in any length of time that is relavent any more.  So you must either choose to have one, or don't.

Though I don't feel a country that allows a USA base on its territory will become a puppet of the USA.  That hosting country can always ask the USA to leave, and world pressure would cause it to happen.

Posted
That would be something I'd like to know as well. I don't think I've actually ever heard a reasonable explanation come from my gov't.

I think you would find the book "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson very interesting. It deals with these bases and what they are really for. Plus the budget for them - your taxes.

Here is an interesting excerp:

(After a speech by Bush) Even if Bush didn't mention the names of the countries he apparently had a list with 60 possible targets, an increase compared to Dick Cheney's speech in November 2001 about "40" to "50" targets we [uSA] possibly could intervene in after we've dealt with al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

And with the current system of things here, not even the "Liberals" that come into office, will remove them- From fear of losing votes.

The way I see it - the US has become a two-party corporate state. What is the difference between the democrats and the republicans anyway?

Well they're staging bases for the middle-east I suppose.

Yes, even in undemocratic countries. I've said it hundreds of times, but why is the US, a supposed democracy that is trying to spread democracy to Iraq (isn't that the reason they're there?) allied with countries like Saudiarabia, Kazakstan and Uzbekistan?

As far as I know the USA is the only power that has Military Bases in other countries.  And yes, Your not alone in wondering why.

You would also be interested in the book I mentioned above. There you'll also find out where all your tax goes. I think the book mentioned that the US wanted to protect their transportation of fuel from the Middle East territories. It is also stated that they will keep a base in Afghanistan, even though fighting there is almost over. 

The book also mentions new plans to hinder communications that go through space - sattelites and such. And not only the enemy's, but allied nations as well, in order for those nations to depend on the US.

Posted

I think you would find the book "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson very interesting. It deals with these bases and what they are really for. Plus the budget for them - your taxes.

Here is an interesting excerp:

(After a speech by Bush) Even if Bush didn't mention the names of the countries he apparently had a list with 60 possible targets, an increase compared to Dick Cheney's speech in November 2001 about "40" to "50" targets we [uSA] possibly could intervene in after we've dealt with al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

Thanks Otherman. I am already aqquainted with Chalmers Johnson. I have a rather Dog-eared copy of "Blowback" Already. I will check out some bookstores for TSoE.

The way I see it - the US has become a two-party corporate state. What is the difference between the democrats and the republicans anyway?

There really is not any. Look at Kerry, He was nearly identical to Bush- He only carried a differant Party Membership Card.

Posted

Indeed. I must agree with what Edric O said in another thread:

I've always known that American democracy had problems, but, after spending three months here and seeing things from a closer perspective, I'm getting the distinct impression that American democracy might well be already dead.

Most political decisions are not made through discussion and negotiation between parties; they are made within one party or another. In fact, over large areas of the US, local and state governments have been solidly in the hands of the same party (either the Democrats or the Republicans) for decades. The act of voting seems to serve a mostly ceremonial function, because people hold inflexible party loyalties that seem unlikely to change no matter what policy their party supports. Most Republican voters will keep voting Republican regardless of what the Republicans actually do, and most Democratic voters will keep voting Democrat regardless of what the Democrats actually do. As for the moderate swing voters, there are few local and state elections whose outcome they can affect - and in any case, they never think outside the Republican vs. Democrat paradigm. With the two main parties using different rhetoric but supporting largely the same policies, the people are given the illusion of power when in fact they are kept powerless.

A simple fact is that no leader (or oligarchy) could survive for a month in charge of the US if they were seen by the people as being undemocratic and dictatorial. Therefore, if you want to set up a dictatorship in America, deception is crucial. You'd have to make sure the system keeps looking like a democracy to the majority of people. I keep thinking again and again of Octavian Augustus. For a long time after the de facto birth of the Roman Empire, most people still believed the Republic was intact.

Posted

@ps501

You said that bases in a country can detter attacks on that country. That is right but who the HELL is gonna attack us? Come on? Ukraine? We'd settle this on our own if it comes to that.

There are historical aspects that must be settled by the people involved in them.

And you said it right: american bases abroad would attcract terrorists, and move them away from USA. But I don't want any crazy long-bearded moron doing a bombing run across my country. We had great relations with the arab states and Israel for as far we can remember. There were even secret meeting before '89 between the israelis and Arrafat in Bucharest. Of course at that time only the Security would know. ;D

What I am trying to say is that a foreign military base in my country detters our soverengity. I mean what, can't we defend ourselves? And believe me... once some country has bases in another country... that country is politically influenced. You can't just ignore a country that has military presence within your borders.

And well... how well did the international opinion worked in the case of IraK? USA still invaded it, so forcing USA to retreat bases by international pressure wouldn't work... I mean as long as the politicians agree, the population can protest all they want.

Posted

I'd have to point that abroad military bases is simply an empire/superpower thing.

The USA is lonely on this since it's the only superpower around now.

But the Soviet Union did it as well. And empires throughout history.

The bases obviously use USA to keep it's military in shape for any scenario and keep intellegence flowing.

-Shiroko

Posted

What I am trying to say is that a foreign military base in my country detters our soverengity. I mean what, can't we defend ourselves? And believe me... once some country has bases in another country... that country is politically influenced. You can't just ignore a country that has military presence within your borders.

Well I'd argue that more than 50% of the world is politically influenced by the USA.  Being the #1 loan shark of the world; providing the most aid, etc.  Many countries couldn't do the things they do without USA aid. 

Now I'm not saying that Romaina would fall apart without US aid or bases, but still an extra 100million in economic gain to have a US base is a tempting prospect.

I don't think (but I'll leave it to a German or Italian to reply) that German or Italians feel their soverenity threatened by a US base being there.  But I do see your point.  I'd not want a [insert country here] base in my back yard either. 

Posted

We had Soviet bases until the '50s. They didn't stay long... but we had them too. Not like the Eastern-Germany, or other countries under communist rule.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.