CLosing of military bases must be played up!!!

[tsetsefly]

I knew the US had a bunch of bases around the world but I didnt know it had over 700 bases:

253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more. google for quote...

I think this point needs to be emphasized and Paul can explain that closing these bases will save us money, bring troops and personnel home, that would help the economy, housing especially...

Really its a subject NO one but Paul has mentioned...

[tsetsefly]

bump

[PRIEST]

What happens to all the personnel when the bases are closed? What happens to the bases?

[noztnac]

You are right. And most of the countries we have bases in hate us.

[noztnac]

What happens to all the personnel when the bases are closed? What happens to the bases?


The troops come home, defend our borders, and spend their paychecks in our country rather than some country that hates us.

[reaver]

We had a fort closed down in my town during the 90's so we could maintain overseas bases like these. Since the fort closed the city around has collapsed and there is probably a billion dollars of infrastructure just falling apart in disrepair. That closing set the region back about 5-10 years. (not that we needed any more help)

[tsetsefly]

Had a fort closed in my town in the 90's and since it left the town has collapsed. Set this place back about 10 years. (not that we needed any more help)

we are talking about foreign bases! not local... although some local bases could be closed as well...

[Danny Molina]

Had a fort closed in my town in the 90's and since it left the town has collapsed. Set this place back about 10 years. (not that we needed any more help)

That personal that worked at that base were probably sent to a new one overseas.

[reaver]

That personal that worked at that base were probably sent to a new one overseas.

Mostly in Missouri but you get the drift. Tstefly- I left out a small tidbit about why it was closed down. Sorry for not posting something that was on the topic.

[tsetsefly]

bump

[axiomata]

You are right. And most of the countries we have bases in hate us.

Actually many if not most would not want us to close our bases in their countries. It is a huge boom for the local economies to have our soldiers and civilian support spending US dollars there.


we are talking about foreign bases! not local... although some local bases could be closed as well...

Do NOT close any local bases! Not only does it make Paul look weak on defense, but it can literally kill the economy set up around the bases.

Yes, we need to start shrinking our permanent international force because of the cost and the blowback in places in the MidEast, but we should do it intelligently and slowly. We should start with countries that want us to leave, we should start with bases that are completely unnecessary, and we should do it in a slow and deliberate manner that doesn't piss of more people by crashing their local economy.

[ratsbew]

Originally Posted by PRIEST http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=574277#post574277)
What happens to all the personnel when the bases are closed? What happens to the bases?



The troops come home, defend our borders, and spend their paychecks in our country rather than some country that hates us.

Most of the overseas bases are permanent, as in our soldiers live there for years, there are no bases state side to hold them.

[RPinSEAZ]

Most of the overseas bases are permanent, as in our soldiers live there for years, there are no bases state side to hold them.

BS.

All that will happen is more soldiers get the opportunity to move off post. So instead of only E5 and above getting to move off post, they'll have E3 and above move. Better for local economies even.

[Luther]

Actually many if not most would not want us to close our bases in their countries. It is a huge boom for the local economies to have our soldiers and civilian support spending US dollars there.


It's also a huge boom for rape and sexual harassment (crimes for which soldiers are never held accountable). South Korea is the most anti-American democracy in the world. The people of Okinawa despise the American occupation. There is a difference between what the people of these occupied countries want and what their governments want.

[ratsbew]

BS.

All that will happen is more soldiers get the opportunity to move off post. So instead of only E5 and above getting to move off post, they'll have E3 and above move. Better for local economies even.

What I meant is that if ALL overseas troops (not just deployed to Iraq) would come home, there would be no room in current bases to house them. New stateside bases would have to be built. And I'm not stupid, I realize that it would take years and years for everyone to come home.

[Luther]

What I meant is that if ALL overseas troops (not just deployed to Iraq) would come home, there would be no room in current bases to house them. New stateside pases would have to be built.

Why do we need the same number of soldiers if we are no longer running a world empire?

Thomas Jefferson:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."


While not as dangerous as banking institutions, he clearly believed that standing armies were a grave threat to our liberties.



The New Testament says "Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."


If we as a nation sow standing armies, 700 military bases in 130 countries, and a greater military expenditure than the rest of the world combined, we can expect to reap endless war (in which we are the aggressors), death, destruction, hatred, and the loss of our liberties.

[lemnad]

What I meant is that if ALL overseas troops (not just deployed to Iraq) would come home, there would be no room in current bases to house them. New stateside bases would have to be built. And I'm not stupid, I realize that it would take years and years for everyone to come home.

It would be phased in like anything else that happens when dealing with large numbers of manning adjustments. Most people do not live on the bases. It's the infrastructure to support them, job positions etc. that is the biggest concern. Military mannning numbers are easily adjusted downward with early retirments, denial of re-enlistments, lowered recruiting goals etc. It's getting more troops when you need them that is the challenge.