Reasons to NOT remove bases oversease: Your thoughts?

[Lord Xar]

Got this off another forum. Gentlemen makes valid points in the depth of knowledge I have. Your thoughts. Valid/InValid? Rebuttal/support?

Quote:
we need to do what Ron Paul says, close ALL 700 bases over seas in other countries and put them here on the border or to take care of our own problems, like gangs taking over cities and towns across this country.


There are some serious flaws in what you're proposing. The Army alone has more than 100,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilians stationed around the world protecting our interest. Furthermore, the active duty military is currently forbidden from undertaking law enforcement duties by the federal Posse Comitatus Act. Utilizing some military on the border should be acceptable because it involves national security. However, unless we're under martial law, the military cannot be used in the interior. Heck, I believe the Army base in Ft. Hood, TX., has two or three divisions. Why not just use them on the border (a division has 10 to 15 thousand soldiers).

If we close all our Army bases down and bring all our soldiers home, a lot of folks are going to lose their jobs and the potential to protect our best interest and nation will be greatly diminished. What about the tens of thousands of military service members and civilians stationed at our Air bases throughout the world (Air Force, Navy, and one USMC). Okay, so will just fire most of them too (can't support having them all home). What about the aircraft? Do we just push those into the sea? Perhaps we should also quit deploying our Naval ships and submarines too because we can't deploy our ships without the drydock and fueling capabilities our bases abroad offer. Let's not even consider the hundreds of thousands of Americans that will lose their jobs. We can't have all those folks just sitting around on their butts in the U.S collecting a paycheck. Plus, how are we going to drydock all those ships and subs in the U.S. (we don't have the facilities for such an undertaking. Up to 50% of our Naval ships are deployed at any given time (actually underway or homeported overseas). Essentially what you're talking about is the complete decimation of our military.

Under the suggested scenario, it won't be long before we're at the complete mercy of any superpower that assumes the roll we're currently playing. When the king of the hill steps down, there is going to be another king - that's just the nature of things. That's right, we'll no longer be considered a superpower, and we'll no longer be able to protect our interest abroad. What do we do when China turns into the global bully? Remember, under the plan you propose we've already destroyed most of our military machine because we couldn't afford to sustain it, and our capabilities have been degraded to point where it would be impossible to set up a defensive posture against a true superpower.

Also, consider this - our inability to protect our best interest will open the doors for every nation to advance and/or create a nuclear weapons program. Who is going to stop them? Who's going to stop the more advanced countries from selling to rouge nations or terrorist? Certainly not us because we'll no longer be a player. What about our agreement to protect Japan? Guess that will be out the window too, which means they'll have to immediately start rebuilding as a military power. Yep, they'll have to obtain nuclear capabilities too because China has them. What about our responsibility to our NATO allies? I guess we'll just leave them flapping in the wind also because we can't offer much protection or support if we no longer have accessible routes to move military hardware, fuel, weaponry, etc. Additionally, without our bases we'll no longer have fast-strike capabilities or staging locations. Yes, we can even forget our friends in Isreal because we can't offer them a lot of support or protection from our perch in the United States (guess Iran can go ahead an wipe them off the face of the planet). Moreover, our biggest accomplishments achieved during the Cold War will be for nothing because Russia will longer feel the need honor our nuclear missile drawdown agreement, especially after we remove our United States Air Forces In Europe (USAFE) command.

Closing all our abroad bases down would create a very volatile world, much more volatile than what we have today. Furthermore, it would effectively remove our status as a superpower. Not that that isn't bad enough, it would also cause a chain reaction that will force hundreds of thousands of American to lose their jobs in military support, military forces, manufacturing, and distribution. I'm sure there are other associated problems that I haven't even thought of that would come from removing all our bases overseas.

ADDITIONAL:

Quote:
stop making assertions. BRINGING OUR TROOPS home and consolidating our power base IS NOT dismantling. You keep saying that, nobody else. Right now, we have our hands full with two 3rd rate countries.
And now we have "China" chomping at the bit, naw... Those days of Roman expansion is over unless you want to collapse like them.


It's not an an assertion, it's fact. If we close our overseas bases down we WILL be effectively dismantling a large portion of our military. You cannot be so naive as to not see that. I thought I explained how it works clearly. YOU CLOSE THE BASES DOWN AND YOU LOSE THOSE MILITARY BILLETS AND THE ASSOCIATED SUPPORT JOBS! In effect you will be reducing our military strength. Can I possibly be any more clearer than that?

Quote:
Bringing our troops home will only strengthen us by coalescing our forces here, and SAVING A BOATLOAD OF MONEY!


NO, NO, NO, a force reduction will not strengthen our military or its capabilities! It's beyond me how anyone could possibly suggest such a thing. Furthermore, the savings you're talking about would be a lot less than you probably think. You are aware that our host nations pay a percentage of the cost aren't you?

Quote:
Decommissioned? Nope. Why would you say that? You are making all that up. There is no proof of that. Bringing our troops home to our soil will not do the things you say. Those items are assets, we have plenty of bases and room here for it all. What would END up happening, if anything, is a streamlining and updating of our outdated equipment.. can anyone say "protective vests"... Maybe other countries should start anteing up and mainting their own armed forces, instead of having US taxpayers maintining theirs for them.


No, I'm not making anything up. From your writings I can tell your knowledge base on this topic is extremely weak. The reduction of our military at the level you suggest (closing all our overseas bases) would decimate our military. We cannot support all of the assest your talking about stateside. For lack of a better terminology, they would have to go away because we could not afford to maintain them. Talking about the ships alone, up to 50% of them are deployed or homeported overseas at any given time. We don't have the facilities to support all of them here at home. Plus, all the manpower necessary to get them underway would no longer exist if the bases were closed. Remember, the jobs went away when the purpose for there existence went away. Do you have any idea of how much military hardware we abandoned or dumped into the sea after WWWI, WWII, and Vietnam? Navy fighter jets were literally dumped off aircraft carriers into the ocean, bombers sent to graveyards (not maintained), tanks left on foreign beaches, ships sunk as artificial reefs, etc. Closing all our military bases (overseas) would cause the same effect, we would be forced to abandon many billions of dollars worth of military hardware, destroy it, and/or dump it. The ships we couldn't support in the United States would be decommissioned because we wouldn't have the manpower to maintain them nor the facilities to store them. Heck, some of the decommissioned warships would be used for target practice and others disposed of by donation for use as artificial reefing. In essence, we would be crippled militarily beyond anything the average Joe could envision. By the way, who are you to question my knowledge on this? You don't know me from Adam. Just curious.

Quote:
American Solidiers jobs will NOT be lost, you are talking about civilians in other countries. Why is it important to you that we "offer" jobs to them, yet we outsource MOST of our american jobs. Infact, by bringing those troops home, we would generate MORE economic viability. Those persons would be consumers in America. They would bring revenue here AND we would create jobs for Americans.


You're so off base (no pun intended) on this it's not even funny. Yes, American soldiers and sailors will lose their jobs. Like I said before, when their billet is eliminated - so is their job (billet = job). This fact should be simple to understand. Additonally, we have thousands of American citizens serving in support positions at the bases located throughout the world. Actually, many of them are the spouses of military members homeported or stationed at the bases. Bringing all those folks home would not generate "MORE" economic viability. Honestly, the lost jobs have very little to do with protecting our interest abroad or national security, however, for your benefit I thought I'd entertain your comments .




.

[UCFGavin]

i'm curious how it is that no other country has such an extensive military presence around the world and yet operate fine. maybe he can answer that?

[pcosmar]

Corporations have interests abroad. The United States has NO interests abroad. We are not now or have we ever been protecting US interests.
The United States is not supposed to have a standing Army. The Whole of the Armed population is our natural Defense.

[Ginobili]

i'm curious how it is that no other country has such an extensive military presence around the world and yet operate fine. maybe he can answer that?

Agreed.

[Shatterhand]

One only has to read the first line to find a hole in the argument.

". . . protect our interest."

Only an empire would have interests to protect, not a republic. :D

[apc3161]

Ok I'm going to respond to every single point.

[rodent]

Got this off another forum. Gentlemen makes valid points in the depth of knowledge I have. Your thoughts. Valid/InValid? Rebuttal/support?


Where he's wrong is that we're already at the mercy of emerging super powers -- namely, China. They hold our debt, meaning they can stop financing our military operations any second. If they nuke our dollar, the bases around the world will not be financed.

It's about the dollar, stupid.[1] The core aspect of Ron Paul's thinking is not that we should be a weak state, but that we're becoming a weak state since our empire's "administrative cost" has us at the mercy of our financiers. Our current situation with China is horrendous. We didn't need to let them get away with their currency manipulation this long -- we only did because of special interests. Now, that serving of special interests has put the American consumer in a very dangerous spot. If the Chinese delink their currency, the dollar will not be able to buy the cheap imported goods we've relied on. Furthermore, the commodities price shocks will make operating our military even more expensive.

These pro-war retards don't get it. They think market fluctuations are acts of God and that all markets rebound. I will tell you right now that that dollar is not going to rebound. For it to become strong, they'd need to cut the number of dollars in circulation and increase interest rates. If they increase interest rates, the economy will crash hard because of the current credit crisis. If they don't increase interest rates, the dollar will fall even further -AND- subject us to the whims of the Chinese government.


[1] You (Lord Xar) are not stupid. Just saying it like a catch phrase.

[Goldwater Conservative]

There are some serious flaws in what you're proposing. The Army alone has more than 100,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilians stationed around the world protecting our interest.

How is having our troops in other countries "protecting our interest"? Isn't "our interest" having civil liberties, free enterprise capitalism, and constitutional government? What does Germany or South Korea have to do with that?


If we close all our Army bases down and bring all our soldiers home, a lot of folks are going to lose their jobs

All arguments against cutting government on the grounds that it'll cost government employees their jobs have no merit. Those jobs exist at the mercy of what's in the best interest of the country.

Anyway, just retrain them if need be so they can get jobs elsewhere within a few years. And even as we're so worried about "projecting our influence", millions of actual veterans go uncared for nowadays.


Under the suggested scenario, it won't be long before we're at the complete mercy of any superpower that assumes the roll we're currently playing.

We don't need to be an empire or to be stretched as thin as we are to be a superpower. All we need are secure borders and ports, a strong free market economy, and a military that can be called upon at any given time to defend the nation against anything or address any imminent threat.

As for China, realistically, they aren't going to be a problem anytime soon. They have too much of an economic interest in trading with us. If anything, rattling the saber against Iran and other trading partners of theirs is more likely to make China a problem for us. Nobody else is a threat if we actually protect our country, which we weren't doing on 9/11 (even then we were too busy policing the world).

As for nuclear weapons, Pakistan already has them, and the more that time goes by, the less realistic it is that we can do anything about any given country having them. If we actually wanted to address our concerns instead of panicking and prophesying doom and gloom, we'd realize that much of the instability in the world, especially anti-American terrorism, owes in part to bad foreign policies during the Cold War. And if we continue to pursue those same imperial policies, forget more aggressively, we will continue to have the same problems as a result.

Honestly, why is it so hard to understand that policing the world makes more enemies and more enemies than we can handle? And that while we're over there, we're wide open over here, and losing hundreds of billions a year that isn't even being invested? We could have a military half the size of what ours is now and still nobody could touch us... provided it was protecting us, not foreign or corporate interests abroad.

[klamath]

Ask him how many bases have been closed in the us in the last twenty years. Just in the Sacramento area three major Air Force bases with all the support and civilian jobs were closed. Maramar naval air base, the home of top gun was closed. Almost all of the naval bases were closed in the San francisco bay area. Navy bases in San Diego have been closed. The presidio army base in SF was closed. An army base (the Name escapes me at the moment) at Monterey, the old home of the 7th light ID was closed. Many many small bases in california have been closed. Many of these bases are just setting as complete ghost towns. This is just in the state of California. His whole arument that we don't have the facilities here is untrue. All those jobs were lost. The bases overseas are giving the foreigners jobs at our expense.

[lucius]

Listen to an expert:

WAR IS A RACKET
General Smedley Butler

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War I a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few - the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out..."

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/WarRacket.htm

Wake-up...

[klamath]

Superpowers are superpowers because of their economies not because of their militaries. we are losing our superpower status because our economy is now behind the EU and in a few short years we will be behind China bacause we are wreaking our economy.
We are protecting the EU with our military while they build their economies.

[apc3161]

>There are some serious flaws in what you're proposing. The Army alone has more than 100,000 soldiers and 28,000 civilians stationed around the world protecting our interest. Furthermore, the active duty military is currently >forbidden from undertaking law enforcement duties by the federal Posse Comitatus Act. Utilizing some military on the border should be acceptable because it involves national security. However, unless we're under martial law, the >military cannot be used in the interior. Heck, I believe the Army base in Ft. Hood, TX., has two or three divisions. Why not just use them on the border (a division has 10 to 15 thousand soldiers).

your right, the idea is not just to bring them home, but to downsize our military. Our military spends more money than every other military in the world combined. We don't need such a large military. So we don't need martial law when they come home, we need a smaller military.

>If we close all our Army bases down and bring all our soldiers home, a lot of folks are going to lose their jobs and the potential to protect our best interest and nation will be greatly diminished. What about the tens of thousands of >military service members and civilians stationed at our Air bases throughout the world (Air Force, Navy, and one USMC). Okay, so will just fire most of them too (can't support having them all home). What about the aircraft? Do we just >push those into the sea? Perhaps we should also quit deploying our Naval ships and submarines too because we can't deploy our ships without the drydock and fueling capabilities our bases abroad offer. Let's not even consider the >hundreds of thousands of Americans that will lose their jobs. We can't have all those folks just sitting around on their butts in the U.S collecting a paycheck. Plus, how are we going to drydock all those ships and subs in the U.S. (we >don't have the facilities for such an undertaking. Up to 50% of our Naval ships are deployed at any given time (actually underway or homeported overseas). Essentially what you're talking about is the complete decimation of our >military.

You are missing an essential component. When our military is smaller, that will mean we can lower taxes. Lower taxes will lead to more money in the hands of the people, which will lead to more private spending, which will boost the economy, which will create jobs. So yes, the result of this would be a stronger economy and less taxes. Right now we are just taxing the people and sending that money overseas to pay for our foreign military bases and ports.

>Under the suggested scenario, it won't be long before we're at the complete mercy of any superpower that assumes the roll we're currently playing. When the king of the hill steps down, there is going to be another king - that's just >the nature of things. That's right, we'll no longer be considered a superpower, and we'll no longer be able to protect our interest abroad. What do we do when China turns into the global bully? Remember, under the plan you propose >we've already destroyed most of our military machine because we couldn't afford to sustain it, and our capabilities have been degraded to point where it would be impossible to set up a defensive posture against a true superpower.

So what if we are not a superpower? Who cares? Its just a name, all it does is satisfy peoples ego, it serves no real functions. Is Switzerland a superpower? Are the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, or Ireland? No they aren't, yet all of those people live better than Americans because their governments are less wasteful in this regard. Superpower is just a word. Do we average American citizens benefit because we are a superpower? No. Do you need to be a superpower to be a prosperous society? No. Again I can name a dozen countries where the average standard of living is higher than it is in the United States. However, do some special interests benefit because we are a superpower? You bet they do, particularly the oil companies and the military industrial complex, which explains why they spend so much money every year to lobby congress to convince them to maintain our empire, because they benefit from it in the form of $100 billion dollar military contracts and security for oil fields (which these companies would have to otherwise pay for). So yes, some people benefit from being a "superpower" but the average American does not. These corporations are paying lobbyists in order to convince congress to spend the taxpayer's money in ways that do not help the taxpayer, but help special interests.

With regard to China, its not like we won't have a strong national defense. Ron Paul is all for having a strong national defense, but right now Chinas military spending is about 10% of ours, so we really don't have much to worry about there. So we could easily "set up a defensive posture" against them without a problem. If anything, having military bases in Germany for instance would only make it more difficult to defend America in a time of emergency. Also, I would encourage you to step away from this entire "superpower vs. superpower" concept. The last time that happened was the cold war and looked what happened. Hundreds of billions of dollars were wasted for nothing (which we now have in the forms of debt which we have had to pay trillions of dollars of interest on, 50,000+ people died in Vietnam for no reason, millions probably died around the globe due to global tension, embargoes, trade sanctions, etc, and nothing was gained from it. If anything, we should be putting all of our efforts into preventing another cold war. Having a military on every corner of the globe wont help in that regard.


>Also, consider this - our inability to protect our best interest will open the doors for every nation to advance and/or create a nuclear weapons program. Who is going to stop them? Who's going to stop the more advanced countries >from selling to rouge nations or terrorist? Certainly not us because we'll no longer be a player. What about our agreement to protect Japan? Guess that will be out the window too, which means they'll have to immediately start >rebuilding as a military power. Yep, they'll have to obtain nuclear capabilities too because China has them. What about our responsibility to our NATO allies? I guess we'll just leave them flapping in the wind also because we can't offer >much protection or support if we no longer have accessible routes to move military hardware, fuel, weaponry, etc. Additionally, without our bases we'll no longer have fast-strike capabilities or staging locations. Yes, we can even >forget our friends in Isreal because we can't offer them a lot of support or protection from our perch in the United States (guess Iran can go ahead an wipe them off the face of the planet). Moreover, our biggest accomplishments >achieved during the Cold War will be for nothing because Russia will longer feel the need honor our nuclear missile drawdown agreement, especially after we remove our United States Air Forces In Europe (USAFE) command.

First off, you have to consider what is RIGHT now promoting these countries to develop nuclear weapons. Consider this, we have NEVER once attacked a country with nuclear weapons. One time Obama said , "we will take action against Osama in pakistan if they don't" What happened after that? There was a firestorm of backlash, "thats irresponsible, using those kinds of words against a nuclear power." etc etc. We had sanctions on North Korea for decades, but what happened once they set off a nuke? The next day we were at the negotiating table trying to come up with a solution, we said we would normalize relations, drop the embargo, etc etc if they would only dismantle their developed nuclear program. So thats what happens when a nation has nuclear weapons, we treat them with utmost respect. What happens when they don't have nuclear weapons and we have a serious disagreement? We either
a) invade them and depose the government ala Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama, Iran, and Iraq, or
b) we just use the CIA to promote dissent in the country and support others who are trying to other throw the government.

So our foreign policy right now is the BIGGEST incentive for other countries to develop nuclear weapons. I hope you can see that. Theres even further incentive because are military is all over the world. These countries (and dictators) or terrified, and they see nuclear weapons as their only means of defense, and if you look at history and our foreign policy, they are right. Our recent attitude with regard to North Korea only highlights this. With regard to South Korea, Israel, NATO, they are not and should not be our number #1 priority. Our first priority should be to defend this country, period. Let them take care of themselves. Besides, the more we get involved the more problems we create in the long run anyways if history has showed us anything. Also Iran would never touch Israel, if they even tried, Israel would literally wipe them off of the map, without a problem (this is something Iran cannot currently do even if they wanted to)

>Closing all our abroad bases down would create a very volatile world, much more volatile than what we have today. Furthermore, it would effectively remove our status as a superpower. Not that that isn't bad enough, it would also >cause a chain reaction that will force hundreds of thousands of American to lose their jobs in military support, military forces, manufacturing, and distribution. I'm sure there are other associated problems that I haven't even thought of >that would come from removing all our bases overseas.

Closing down all of our bases around the world would lead to less government spending and less taxes, this would boost our economy and lead to more jobs. The world would be less volatile because countries will feel the need to defend themselves knowing America wouldn't be there to take care of them. We wouldn't be a superpower, but that is only a word that is useful for satisfying ones ego, it serves no real purpose. For these reasons, we should close down the bases, and further secure our own country which right now is less secure as a result of our activities around the world. Also, who wouldn't want lower taxes. Give me one real reason why we need to spend more than all the other militaries in the world combined. We don't, and if we do as we are now, it is just a a waste.

Also one last note, you do know Al-Qaeda was pretty much formed as a result of our foreign activities right? Three reasons

1) support of Israel in the occupation of Palestine and Lebanon (1982)
2) Putting American bases in Saudi Arabia, having foreign troops there is against Islamic law
3) the sanctions on Iraq in the 90's which led to the deaths of over 500,000 children due to a lack of medicine.

If you want links to interviews where Osama says this himself, I woudl be more than glad to provide them, i.e http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXQPnvfA1w

You should take that into account as well.

-apc

[apc3161]

There I responded to every single point. gg

[Malakai0]

The writer made a false and fatal assumption that we are going to redeploy the military in our cities to fight gangs, that's rediculous. Border patrols sure, thats fine w/me. We have laws about deploying armed forces on US soil that must be respected.

The military would get shrunken down. We don't need to spend what is it, three to five times more on ours then anyone else in the world? It's just not necessary.

The military should go back to how it was in the past, completely funded by the corporate income tax (at most). That is bringing in a little over 400 billion this year. More than enough money.


I'd hate to know how much of the military budget is pork spending. I read an article that a nice portion of the military budget actually has no record of where it went, and then there is lots of on the books bs spending after that...

[Bossobass]

Posse Comitatus:

Applies only to the Army, and by extension the Air Force, which was formed out of the Army in 1947.

Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them.

Does not apply to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transportation and is both an armed force and a law enforcement agency with police powers.

Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors.

May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army. [9] It is commonly believed, however, that National Guard units and personnel come under the Posse Comitatus Act when they are on federal active duty, and this interpretation is followed today.

Does not apply to state guards or State Defense Forces under the command of the respective governors.

Does not apply to military personnel assigned to military police, shore police, or security police duties. The military police have jurisdiction over military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They also exercise police powers over military dependents and others on military installations. The history of the law makes it clear that it was not intended to prevent federal police (for example, marshals) from enforcing the law.

Does not apply to civilian employees, including those who are sworn law enforcement officers. The origin and legislative history of the act make it clear that it applies only to military personnel. In those days, there were no civilian employees of the Army in the sense that there are today. In particular, no one envisioned that the Army would hire civilian police officers to enforce the laws at its facilities.

Does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995. Most of these operations were to enforce the law, and many of them were to enforce state law rather than federal law. [10] Nor does it prevent the military services from supporting local or federal law enforcement officials as long as the troops are not used to arrest citizens or investigate crimes.

This guy seems to forget that most of the troops fighting in Iraq are National Guard and private mercenaries under Blackwater.

It's always funny to me when someone says that we have troops around the world to "protect our interests". That's code for "protecting Exxon's, United Fruit's, AT&T's, Coca Cola's, etc, interests".

"They" instigate political upheaval, install a puppet regime and pay that regime a few points commission and take the rest of the money for themselves. That's called using US taxpayer's resources to allow for monopoly plundering of another country's resources.

As far as any other country 'bullying' the United States, China just did exactly that by threatening to dump it's dollar reserves in retaliation to the proposed tariffs before Congress. This is exactly why we have to pull back Empire spending, and the sooner the better.

Bosso

[lemnad]

I would not close every single base, but alot of them. It would be phased in just like anything else of those proportions. You would just adjust your recruiting levels down and beef the Guard units back up to off set the manning losses. It would have to be a 10+ year plan to do right. He speaks as if within a year period or so a 200k military folks will get the boot. It can be done with little impact. Most of the countries were at do not want us there (the citizens). It's all political. We need to use our financial might (while we still have it) instead of military strenth to assert ourselves around the world. That is what intelligent, confident people would do. You all know the type of people that use fear and force to get things done.

[jmdrake]

The most far fetched argument in the original post is the idea that we have to maintain overseas military bases in order to "protect jobs". The military was never meant to be an employment agency.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[noxagol]

Military jobs are very bad for the economy. It isn't a generation of wealth. It is redistribution of the wealth.

[Revolution9]

There I responded to every single point. gg

Good job. I was thinking the same thing on most of the points you made. It is just logical thinking.

Best Regards
Randy

[seapilot]

Superpowers are superpowers because of their economies not because of their militaries. we are losing our superpower status because our economy is now behind the EU and in a few short years we will be behind China bacause we are wreaking our economy.
We are protecting the EU with our military while they build their economies.

THis is the truth. Look at the soviet union. China is waiting thier turn and they know "its the economy stupid". The day that we started borrowing money from them(a communist nation?!) to pay for the iraq war instead of our own citizens (remember war bonds?) was the day we ended our superpower status.

We cant afford our bases overseas, they are obsolete as ICBMs, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, spy satelites can and reach any spot in the world.

[apc3161]

Good job. I was thinking the same thing on most of the points you made. It is just logical thinking.

Best Regards
Randy

Thanks =)

[timosman]

bump

[nikcers]

The lesson of the Iraq war was supposed to be we are not the only super power-

The Iran agreement was supposed to be an agreement between the government "powers" of the world, it was supposed to be us conceding that we are not the only super power. The American government was supposed to sell it to the Americans as an alternative to going to war with Iran. The government tried to convince Americans that we are the world leader by selling the Iran deal as political theater as a show of force. This show of force required us to "lead from behind" as the neocons say- Putin came in and made Iran sign this deal- Putin's involvement was supposed to make Russia look like a world super power.


After Russia found out that Iran's "leadership" is an American puppet show- they got extremely aggressive and started demanding a bunch of shit get added onto the deal. Obama had already staked his reputation on having this deal go through so he bent over backwards to make the deal go through- all the while the establishment sent in their Trump card to make sure the Iran deal would not happen. Trump has now lead up the 2016 election basically promising regime change in Iran, this is exactly what Putin wants- Trump hasn't learned the lesson from the Iraq war though, he thinks he can do the Iraq war better.

[osan]

Ugh...

I agree that we are not well advised to shut it all down from one minute to the next, but we can certainly work toward the goal of elimination in piecemeal fashion.

An argument against even that is that nations such as China would fill the vacuum. First of all, this is unlikely; but if China is that stupid, then let them.

The "we can't do it because..." argument only succeeds when speaking in the short-term period where change would take place. In the longer term, I am not convinced there would be problems. But just as with the heroin addict, the fear of what will happen if we stop is a strong motivator to continue as you have been.

[osan]

Superpowers are superpowers because of their economies not because of their militaries.

In bigger-picture terms, I have to agree.

I would also point out that militarily speaking, "super power" only has value as a threat, or when you are fighting all-out, Geneva-be-damned, existential-stakes war. The former has worked very well insofar as it has been used properly. The latter, yet to be made use, would almost certainly prove a source of grand failure for all parties.


we are losing our superpower status because our economy is now behind the EU and in a few short years we will be behind China bacause we are wreaking our economy.

Behind EU? In what terms? The European economy is not doing particularly well. My entire family is there and they would not report the circumstances as booming.


We are protecting the EU with our military while they build their economies.

Absolutely so, as we have been since the end of hostilities in 1945. This is yet another fact that the progressive/socialist fails to take into account. For example, they wax all erect and moist over the "wonderful" Swedish economy and their socialistic arrangement. First of all, Sweden's economy is on a bit of a teeter. Now consider that they have borne something like 3% of their defense costs, America having picked up the remainder. How well would their socialized <fill in the blank> be working out, were they suddenly saddled with the cost of defending themselves? They would crash and burn in a matter of a few months, if not weeks.

The same may be said for the rest of western European economies - all the NATO nations. Just wait until such time as America is no longer able or willing to pony up - you will see the grandest crapping of pants the world has ever experienced. Europe would likely fold as a cheap suit in very short order. Just look at the various events in places such as Greece, France, Ireland, and so on. Disaster averted by thin slices. Now ask yourself how in the world would the EU be able to repeat those unwise disbursements with the crushing costs of national defense consuming their already inadequate resources. It would likely be game-over. I suspect that this is yet to come.

This underscores the ill-advised nature of foreign aggression and nation-stealing and building. Russia is a plausible, if unlikely, threat. If they attack and roll in the tanks, they will thereafter have to keep what they have taken. Perhaps they have not quite yet forgotten the Afghan cluster-copulation?

So we see that foreign aggression is endlessly costly and risk-laden for the aggressors, though the Euros are become such compliant pussies, perhaps the calculus has changed. This all leads us to the optimal solution - one which Europe is not likely to embrace: freedom. Not the pretty slavery (not really so very pretty anymore, all edifice facades suggesting otherwise notwithstanding), but actual and proper human freedom where every man wishing arms would be free to keep and bear them. Under such an arrangement, the costs of national defense are reduced to the bare minimum with a reduced need for large-scale military devices such as artillery, costly aircraft and navies, and so forth. Simply transform every man into an armed weapon system of low-cost. Train in guerrilla warfare, keep your rifle and ammo in the closet, and go about your lives. When the Russians invade, you pick their men off one at a time until they tire of the costs they have brought upon themselves through their ill-considered choice to invade Derkaderkastan.

Unless Russia seeks to annihilate, say, Europe with nuclear strikes, aggression against the "west" would make no rational sense where there is an armed civilian population. It would fail both militarily and economically. Therefore, Europe's solution is to arm everyone and give freedom a whirl. But they will likely never do that mainly because in such matters the Europeans have historically proven themselves rank nitwits. The fundamental assumptions upon which they found their basic world view is, in a world, completely-fucking-retarded.

It would be a great wonder to see Trump yank the defense funding from Europe. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of it happening, but boy oh boy would it be a great thing. The EU would take a shit as no political entity ever has, and it would be the best thing for them because they would then be forced to make other arrangements... although I would not foresee them as trying freedom off the bat. They would go through all manner of churn in the desperate attempt to preserve the socialist status quo, which we can all see would be impossible in the longer term. But that fact would not stop them from trying endlessly... that is, until the real existential threats began raising their heads. Not sure they retain enough basic survival sense even then, but one can hope.

Freedom: I will say it for the umpteenth time - it is the ONLY viable long-term arrangement that does not inevitably lead to death, destruction, disease, and universal misery. But Theye are not much concerned with the welfare of the average man. Very much contrary, Theye are ever concerned with the upkeep of his abjection and misery. Without that, Theire positions mean nothing.

That last bit is the true sickness from which Theye suffer: status and self-esteem derives in direct proportion to the misery and impoverishment of those over whom Theye presume to lord. In days long past, the Burgermeister's pride and status derived from the contentment and prosperity of those whom he served. This shift in world-view is both extreme and radical, being indicative of a deeply virulent sickness. I can barely over-state the importance of this sad and endlessly dangerous truth. I will further point out that it could have come about only through the demoralization of the people through the dismantling of the moral foundations upon which healthy and free societies must be built. Even the Framers made plenty of mention of the fact that a free nation cannot be peopled with stooges and moral degenerates. When considered deeply, it becomes clear that the progressives have accomplished a coup so vast, so complete, and so utterly devastating in its victory, that any man of reasonable intellect taking the time to give it the least proper entertainment will be left so appalled as to be initially paralyzed by it. That is no exaggeration, either. The world is THAT altered precisely because mind is that radically changed.

We cannot recover from this because people do not understand and accept the root of the problem, which is that of attitude. This, of course, suggests without equivocation that responsibility resides with each and every one of us as individuals. This truth is so violently repulsive to the average man that he will simply reject it out of hand every time, preferring to waltz to the death march of his own destruction over facing the truth of what a real solution would require of him.

I am not a Christian, as I cannot accept what are for me the irrational and unsound trappings of that faith. I am, however, a strong adherent to the basic tenets of Christian ethics, which are those of the Free Man. They are based upon the Golden Rule, which is Perfection itself. They are based upon love of self, and by extension that of one's fellows, which leads to respect and patience and tolerance even when circumstance tries those qualities in a man to the edges of his endurance.

But gentleness and love have been largely supplanted with impatience, intolerance, and self-interest turned to self-destruction and disregard for all decency. This truth is made most clearly manifest in the so-called "liberal" (talk about penultimate irony) who blathers and blithers on endlessly with his spews of "tolerance", "respect", and even (get your barf bags ready) "love". Greater and more bitter irony I cannot imagine in my wildest musings. These people are about nothing other than blind and pealing hatred, intolerance, disregard for their fellows, and a masturbatory self-centeredness gone wildly wrong such that they are become creatures of ultimate weakness, despite being also endlessly dangerous to those around them. They are driven by all these fine qualities and fueled by a willful ignorance that defies the credulity of the reasonable man. They run so wholly amok that men of even the most minimal intelligence find themselves largely unable to wrap their heads around that which dances before their very eyes for the madness to which they bear witness.

The really scary element in this is the fact that this raving, hacking insanity is become subtle to the perceptions of the average man. It is so deeply ingrained that it has become normalized and therefore unremarkable. Therein lies a primal danger, the defense against which I am not sure I have a solution. Vast hordes of adults actually think it is no big deal that their 12 year old daughters get on their knees at parties while 20 boys take their turns coming in their mouths. Just as bad, they see no problem with the role of the boys either. It may be our choice, but there are consequences.

We are, in a word, pretty fucked. But who knows, perhaps I am just an old fashioned has-been. I do seriously disbelieve that I or anything for which I stand has any place in the future of the race of men. Better this world be done with the likes of myself, I suppose.