Poll: Send Your Troops Home, America
- Thread starter thiosk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Disregard last quote as I put my comment in wrong place.gof22 said:
I don't think any country has the right to change another country. It was wrong for them to do that stuff to their wife and children but I say only if the country wants change should a country help them change.
I'll say this much: we need to get the fuck out of Japan and Germany.
As Bill Maher said: "Aren't these people eventually going to have to learn to rape themselves?"
As Bill Maher said: "Aren't these people eventually going to have to learn to rape themselves?"
Thank you.Kalezian said:we have non-combat bases in allied countries, though it is funny how none of them have a base in America. I for one would accept, say, Japan or Germany to have atleast one base in America. but for the most part the U.N. is the only other authoritative body that has bases in countries that are permanent.oliveira8 said:
yes, it was planned by the reptilian aliens to take over the world after everyone is weakened, lets not forget that it wasnt an airplane that hit the world trade centers, but really missles that had a holograph draped over them:HassEsser said:
^clearly a Zygork missle
lets not forget all the horrible things we have done to the school children in the middle east, like allow girls to get an education, build schools, hospitals, and libraries. oh dear god these should be considered war crimes, after all, it is legal to beat your wife nearly to death in some of those countries and we should respect that, not to mention its also acceptable to marry an 11 year old and allow her to have a child which kills both her and the child during birth: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/14/yemen.childbirth.death/index.html
yes, clearly America has done more harm than good, so lets leave the Middle East to marry and beat children: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html
My two cents on the whole middle east stuff goes as follows. Really the US Army is (IMHO) acting as a substitute army for the middle eastern countries, and once (if ever) we can get them trained, a stable government setup, and remove any form of corruption then we can come home. Really it's a battle of attrition if you ask me. If we can't kill off our enemies at the source this will never end.
Also Iran really needs to be dealt with ASAP.
At the end of the day, the question facing the US (or any nation) whe considering the disposition of it's armed forces is never one of "what's best for those around me" and is instead "what's best for me". Of course, these days it becomes pretty difficult to tell where national security ends and corporate gain begins - probably the question that troubles more most often.
There are places that I think we no longer need to keep our troops in. Korean's seemed more or less ambivilant to my presence when I was in the Army and yet we keep 50,000 men in the country. Since communisim has more or less failed, should I really worry about South Korea falling to the North? I'd say the answer is no, and while I may have a tiny amount of empathy for the South Koreans, at the end of they day, if you're relying on another nation to secure your defense, you clearly don't deserve it.
Then there are our cold war bases in Europe. I like to think Europe won't be facing russian invasion any time soon, and as a result I'm sure their armies are more than capable of doing whatever European armies do now that colonaialism is mostly a thing of the past. Combine that with the fact that we aren't terribly well liked and I'm forced to wonder why bother.
Of course, there are counter arguments that have a great deal of merit, but I won't indulge them. Simply put, for every argument about fiscal responsiblity and world relations there is another one about national security that often holds just as much merit. In the two cases I cited, I feel that fiscal responsibility and fellowship should probably win out.
There are places that I think we no longer need to keep our troops in. Korean's seemed more or less ambivilant to my presence when I was in the Army and yet we keep 50,000 men in the country. Since communisim has more or less failed, should I really worry about South Korea falling to the North? I'd say the answer is no, and while I may have a tiny amount of empathy for the South Koreans, at the end of they day, if you're relying on another nation to secure your defense, you clearly don't deserve it.
Then there are our cold war bases in Europe. I like to think Europe won't be facing russian invasion any time soon, and as a result I'm sure their armies are more than capable of doing whatever European armies do now that colonaialism is mostly a thing of the past. Combine that with the fact that we aren't terribly well liked and I'm forced to wonder why bother.
Of course, there are counter arguments that have a great deal of merit, but I won't indulge them. Simply put, for every argument about fiscal responsiblity and world relations there is another one about national security that often holds just as much merit. In the two cases I cited, I feel that fiscal responsibility and fellowship should probably win out.
It's alright I'll forgive you for that. Thanks for enlightening me on a piece of Canadian history I haven't really taken time to learn about before.Gelp said:What are you talking about?DJ Lord Destructocon said:Well, as a canadian, I'm pretty much fucked even if they didn't have any bases over here. In my opinion the US has way too much control over my country.
Although they do have us surrounded to with Alaska and all that....
They don't have control over us, we're a major trade partner.
That in many ways gives US the upper hand!
How do you think we got away with continuing trade with, and visiting Cuba and other communist countries during the 70's when they were at the hight of their 'communism is evil' phase. Not ONLY did our prime minister(Pierre Trudeau) VISIT South American Communist countries, but he also made BFFs with Castro and openly criticized the American involvement in South American countries, saying that South America would be much better off without them.
He also kept Castro a close pen pal, and Castro even carried his coffin when he died!
All during the time when America was so bold to say they'd cut trade with anyone who would openly trade with the very same countries WE were trading with. But we could do it!
Why? Because the U.S won't cut trade with their biggest trade partner, that would be retarded.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, the US has about as much control over us, as we have over them. We both have each other by the balls. As long as we have our own independent say over things, we are pretty much safe. Especially if we had another Pierre, he had such a great philosophy, a 'respect everyone, regardless of your differences, they're people too' type one. And looking at our politics lately we could use that attitude again.
Sorry I... kinda had a history barf.
That doesn't mean they aren't training the seals as intelligence operatives in Newfoundland...
(they're watching you)
Well, we can't really say that anybody 'won' the american civil war. It's only a victory if all your nobles get their heads cut off, right france?
Many would argue that america's rise to power coincides with their worldwide military influence. We can definately say that japan has benefitted greatly from american presence in their country after WW2.
If you look at history over the last 60 or so years, you see that generally invading another country looking to take over control and expand territory has been stopped. Civil unrest and wars still happen, as well as genocide.
Hell, alot of people in america, past and present, argued that isolationism was the way to go. Ultimately we learned that maintaining the peace of the world allows us to make more money. Do we need to enforce human rights and democracy in countries like Iraq and Afganistan? Most likely not. Ultimately, history has shown that people will fight to the death to ensure that their own corrupt leaders will stay in power to ensure that they remain uneducated and impoverished. American lives are worth more than the rights of ungrateful foreigners' rights. Just look at vietnam.
Many would argue that america's rise to power coincides with their worldwide military influence. We can definately say that japan has benefitted greatly from american presence in their country after WW2.
If you look at history over the last 60 or so years, you see that generally invading another country looking to take over control and expand territory has been stopped. Civil unrest and wars still happen, as well as genocide.
Hell, alot of people in america, past and present, argued that isolationism was the way to go. Ultimately we learned that maintaining the peace of the world allows us to make more money. Do we need to enforce human rights and democracy in countries like Iraq and Afganistan? Most likely not. Ultimately, history has shown that people will fight to the death to ensure that their own corrupt leaders will stay in power to ensure that they remain uneducated and impoverished. American lives are worth more than the rights of ungrateful foreigners' rights. Just look at vietnam.
...Projo said:
Usually when you use sarcasm, you need to put a slash-sarcasm tag at the end of it. It clears up confusion that way.
/sarcasm
Hey, look, a new topic starter who has no clue. Haven't seen that yet this hour.
You think we keep military bases overseas for stability reasons? Japan? Germany? Australia? They're totally unstable. They'll collapse at a moment's notice, and only the Pentagon knows it. Yep.
Even if we're willing to stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend that your basic premise is correct, the economic stability argument is more impressive than you might realize at first. That handy-dandy trade deficit we have? Yeah. We can't really maintain our economy if we (we being humanity, not America) can't pump resources out of the global market at a dizzying pace, and most of the civilized world's economies rest on our trade deficit. Loss of stability in the Middle East undercuts the entire American economy. It means we can't consume, we can't produce, and frankly, that we can't eat, even though America grows almost all of its own food. American food exports will plummet, food prices will spike, and people worldwide will die, all over a few (billions of) dollars.
Coming back to the real world now, it's a good thing that no one trusts global stability to the American military of all things, because they don't provide it, and pretty much no one except Dubya ever expected them to. The military does a really good job of destabilizing things, which is important when the status quo threatens to do something like turn an allied nation into a giant glass bowl in the desert, or, to use a much older example, a foreign superpower threatens to disrupt global trade and spread an ideology that encourages individuals to actively seek to harm us.
You think we keep military bases overseas for stability reasons? Japan? Germany? Australia? They're totally unstable. They'll collapse at a moment's notice, and only the Pentagon knows it. Yep.
Even if we're willing to stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend that your basic premise is correct, the economic stability argument is more impressive than you might realize at first. That handy-dandy trade deficit we have? Yeah. We can't really maintain our economy if we (we being humanity, not America) can't pump resources out of the global market at a dizzying pace, and most of the civilized world's economies rest on our trade deficit. Loss of stability in the Middle East undercuts the entire American economy. It means we can't consume, we can't produce, and frankly, that we can't eat, even though America grows almost all of its own food. American food exports will plummet, food prices will spike, and people worldwide will die, all over a few (billions of) dollars.
Coming back to the real world now, it's a good thing that no one trusts global stability to the American military of all things, because they don't provide it, and pretty much no one except Dubya ever expected them to. The military does a really good job of destabilizing things, which is important when the status quo threatens to do something like turn an allied nation into a giant glass bowl in the desert, or, to use a much older example, a foreign superpower threatens to disrupt global trade and spread an ideology that encourages individuals to actively seek to harm us.
I dont quite see the point in forcing me to answer the poll with the "I am American" response, but I followed the rules.
Honestly, I dont think much would change if we closed all of our foreign bases. And realize that by foreign bases I mean bases kept in "an active state of alert in any area other than one of armed conflict", not active military bases in regions such as Afghanistan.
Short term, the US would save some money, and a few isolated regions might have some political instability, but mostly everything would stay the same.
The long term effect, then, would be that if something does occur in an area outside America's borders that effect America's interests, The US would be able to do very little about it without the implied or direct application of force. So basically it borders down to whether or not Americans are willing to hemorrhage moneys to continue to have a more heavy-handed position in international politics. For the most part, I think the answer would be yes.
Honestly, I dont think much would change if we closed all of our foreign bases. And realize that by foreign bases I mean bases kept in "an active state of alert in any area other than one of armed conflict", not active military bases in regions such as Afghanistan.
Short term, the US would save some money, and a few isolated regions might have some political instability, but mostly everything would stay the same.
The long term effect, then, would be that if something does occur in an area outside America's borders that effect America's interests, The US would be able to do very little about it without the implied or direct application of force. So basically it borders down to whether or not Americans are willing to hemorrhage moneys to continue to have a more heavy-handed position in international politics. For the most part, I think the answer would be yes.
We still have a few bases in Germany and I don't really care.
Recently, one got closed down and the nearby shops went under.
That's sad but not really a big issue on the national scale, so I say: Do what you will.
It doesn't really have any influence on us.
Recently, one got closed down and the nearby shops went under.
That's sad but not really a big issue on the national scale, so I say: Do what you will.
They have, 50 to 60 years ago. They are unnecessary today, obviously, but I don't care if they remain or not.
It doesn't really have any influence on us.
Okay, a little history lesson. Remember that whole WW2 thing where Japan decided to be stupid dicks and bomb our remote port in pearl harbor? That wasn't their declaration that they decided to become an empire controlling the pacific. Years before, they decided that what is now called Korea is gonna be their land, and they conquered it. Then they decided that all koreans were now japanese, and pretty much crushed korean language and culture. Later they continued their conquest and invaded china. These people were treated horribly during the war, and used for hard labor, sex slaves and later to suppliment japans military.SODAssault said:
I hope you understand that japan doesn't really have giant robots, monsters and five man super teams protecting it from outside forces. They have a minimal self defense force. Removing american forces from Japan would invite attack from North Korea and China. North Korea is led by a madman who would love to 'unite' korea under his rule and get revenge on japan. China is a fiercely proud country that likes to remind the rest of east asia that at one time, they all were part of china, so they should still be part of china.
As for germany... do I really have to go into how germany tried to take over europe TWICE in the 20th century? I'm not saying that we should NEVER trust germany, but I am saying we should never take our eyes off of them.
Hah I'm in Australia, no American troops here! Well there's a handful in the northern territory (translation middle of nowhere) working in cooperation with us for space stuff.thiosk said:
Wanna know the best part about your little sob story?gim73 said:
The majority of the the higher ups who allowed all those human rights abuses to take place were not only never prosecuted, but were in fact re-instated with their authority after Japans surrender. Re-instated by none other than the the victorious and morally correct Allies of course.
(Yes, everyone knew they were responsible for the human rights abuses, but they thought it was more important to protect Japan from communism.)
Its a little over a handful (No one knows, but as many as 1000), and you have to remember, the space stuff involves military satellites and missile telemetry. This is the kind of work thats vital for front line troops, what with the reliance on GPS and satellite technology these days.BrynThomas said:
Damn straight it's important to protect japan from communism! Look what happened to korea!Armitage Shanks said:
Not to sound like a racist bastard or anything, but back in the 40's, the US didn't care what happened to 'yellow' people. We were content to just toss all the japanese americans into internment camps for the duration of the war. After the war we had plenty of white folks to punish for war crimes. Most people would consider how we treated chinese railroad builders comparable to the forced labor the japanese put their fellow asians through. We can recognize alot of racism in american history, and while much of that is gone, ignorant bastards still exist in the US with these beliefs intact.
Don't forget that America isn't the only power in the world that has over seas bases.
Britain has military bases in the Falkland's, N Ireland, Bosnia, Germany, Cyprus, Gilberta, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan of course, and the Accession Islands.
France has bases in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chad, Senegal, Djibouti, Afganistan, Lebanon, French Polynisia etc
Germany has troop's in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in Afganistan and Lebanon.
Combined, the EU powers probably occupy a similar number of bases across the world to that of the US. Do any European escapist's think these troops should stay or be withdrawn?
Britain has military bases in the Falkland's, N Ireland, Bosnia, Germany, Cyprus, Gilberta, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan of course, and the Accession Islands.
France has bases in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chad, Senegal, Djibouti, Afganistan, Lebanon, French Polynisia etc
Germany has troop's in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in Afganistan and Lebanon.
Combined, the EU powers probably occupy a similar number of bases across the world to that of the US. Do any European escapist's think these troops should stay or be withdrawn?