Dismantling an empire [Archive]

AAReagles

7th May 2010, 22:28

Yesterday I came across this article in the Los Angeles Times, that raised the issue of the US military maintaining its' presence on the island of Okinawa. It was quite interesting in the fact that it also mentioned the number of bases the US has (700) in some 130 countries.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/06/opinion/la-oe-johnson-20100506

As bad as this sounds, I was completely unaware of the fact that we (the US) had so many bases in an unbelieveable amount of countries. I knew that we were regarded as a 'super power', such as Russia, and now China, but now I think we are indeed an empire. More importantly, I wonder if it is necessary to have so many bases strung throughout the globe.

I'm not one for the disarming the defense capabilities of our nation, but I do think that just the expenses alone are reason enough to consider this state of affairs as unnecessary. Particularly since it's been years since the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Bloc countries regained their sovereignty.

Yes there are still viable threats out there, possibly Russia still, as well as China, N. Korea, Iran and whatever other country garnishes itself with nuclear power - nevertheless we have nuclear brinkmanship (as always). And having some bases/ports is beneficial, and good even, as long as corresponding countries/societies can agree to it.

There are of course military logistical reasons for maintaining fortified centers of operations, however it seems a bit of overdone. Particularly since the economic mess we're in isn't helping things any.

Another reason that I'm not so game on this global military positioning, is that it makes it that much easier, or 'encouraging' I should say, to launch an assault on other regions. Which is not a good thing when you consider how eager our trigger-happy gov't., has been in the past to get us involved in conflicts.

Any thoughts?

Note: hopefully this is a thread that will have some reasonable keyboard diplomacy and not get itself closed because of someone's jactitation. Be it American or otherwise.

Brown, Jon Brow

7th May 2010, 22:34

I don't understand why the USA needs such a huge navy. The US Navy could sink all the other Navies in the world. Do they really need 11 or so aircraft carriers?

AAReagles

7th May 2010, 22:42

Well that was another point I forgot to make, is that we have a big enough navy to get the job done - and no, I am not for a reduction in that or our armed forces in general, just a reduction in our military presence throughout the globe.

Easy Drifter

8th May 2010, 02:11

Without knowing more about the bases it is hard to say if they are really needed.
Some may be just radar stations or satellite tracking stations.
Some may be and quite likely are, basically refueling stations for either planes or ships. I would expect quite a few to be in various parts of Europe and often are airbases.
Just the same 700 seems awfully high and so does 130 countries.
Do they include bases in the US in the 700?
Every state has a Ntl. Guard and there are more than 50 bases alone there. Way more I expect as many have both army and air force Ntl. Guard units. Add in the regular airforce, marine, army and navy bases and it adds up in a hurry. Do they also count the US Coast Guard?
Do they also count bases such as the NORAD base in North Bay, Ont. which is a CFB base but has US personnal assigned there?
The 130 countries is harder to understand.

airshifter

8th May 2010, 03:40

No doubt the cost is staggering, but in the scheme of 2010 budgets and economics, the cost of just about everything in the US is staggering.

There are in fact many "bases" that consist of a building or two on a small parcel of land. While combing through one of those giant lists I came across places I had been, and sometimes small areas off of the main "base" were considered another physical location and base. In some cases the land between the buildings is leased by the US government, but it is left open and unsecured so the general public can use the land.

I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not. Okinawa is a prime example of this type of thing. Having lived there for a year I have seen both sides of the debate, but very few people understand that Okinawans for the most part will be unhappy with just about anything the Japanese government does.

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.

As for the Navy and the carriers.... well for one we will keep building them. They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level. A carrier full of combat troops can loiter offshore for as long as needed, an aircraft can't. But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.

Good topic but I suspect the US bashers will be along soon to claim it's all Bush's fault or something. ;)

Bob Riebe

8th May 2010, 04:32

tstran17_88

8th May 2010, 05:44

Hmm, we have too many ships and too many bases;
My guess is that the US Navy was caught with their pants down and/or made bad decisions one early Sunday morning in 1941. Who was their chief and commanding officer/president at the time?

Somebody after that decided that would never happen again.

The next time that something like that happened was a beautiful late summer day in September 2001 when after the previous executive administration in Washington DC deregulated the armed forces that protect the US against foreign invaders.

Is their a similarity in the political aspirations of the president in 1941, who had served since 1933 and the president who was in charge pre-2001?

Jag_Warrior

8th May 2010, 12:11

I think of the U.S. bases around the world more as quasi-police stations than colonies or parts of an empire. When a nation has an empire, there's usually money flowing IN from the colonies. In our case, the money goes in the other direction.

For anyone who is interested in a comparing and contrasting a super power of the ancient world with one from today, there is a wonderful book which I highly recommend: "Empires of Trust --- How Rome Built and America is Building a New World"

Eki

8th May 2010, 17:47

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.

What difference does it make if the land is private or owned by the government? After the war, Finland had to lease land to a Soviet military base on the south cost of Finland (the Soviets abandoned it in 1956). The land was privately owned, but the owners had no say in it. The Finnish government just relocated them elsewhere.

Mark in Oshawa

8th May 2010, 21:58

I think there is a rational argument for the US forces to contract their numbers of bases around the world. There are compelling arguments though that do stand up over time why they stay. The fact is, superpowers by their mere presence in a region actually do add stability. Whether it was the USSR or the USA, no one would attack one or the other in a region, and any regional conflicts that went on near the presence of the military of a superpower did so at their peril. The US has been in a lot of nations with their bases, mainly through accident or the aftermath of wars, and the presence of their troops being there has stopped hostile action in the territories they sit in. Russia or China didn't conteplate a move on Taiwan or Japan, and the Korean conflict has hit a defacto truce because mainly of the US Military being there. So there is a benefit to the "trip wire" of the US Army in that region.

I think Jag's point is spot on though. The US pays a lot more to maintain this presence than the multinationals based in America get back in business. In short, the US could probably spend the money better elsewhere if not for the geo-political benefits of the military being spread around the world.

As for the size of the US Navy, there is a VERY good reason it is that big. It makes for a more comfortable cycle and rotation for the sailors who have to maintain and supply the military presence around the world. What is more, the cost of having to build or borrow the ships if something does come up is a LOT. Just ask the people who had to write the checks in the UK in the run up and aftermath of the Falklands.

Large nations with influence, whether it be the USSR/Russia, or the USA, or China will maintain a large military because in the end, that is how they stay a large nation with influence.

Eki

8th May 2010, 23:32

Large nations with influence, whether it be the USSR/Russia, or the USA, or China will maintain a large military because in the end, that is how they stay a large nation with influence.
And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?

Mark in Oshawa

9th May 2010, 00:38

And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?

If it makes the world safer, yes it isn't a bad idea. One thing is for sure, if the USA wasn't projecting themselves, only a fool would believe the USSR and China wouldn't have in the years of the Cold War. Even today, the US could probably do without a lot of the places they are in, but it isn't going to make the world better if they ignore things happening elsewhere. Isolationism until 1941 worked for the US, but look how well the world went to hell in a handbasket after 1919, when the US helped form the League of Nations and then walked away from it.....

Face it Eki, there are and always have been superpowers. Spain was one, the Dutch in an alliance with Spain and Venice were part of one, then the English at the time of the Armada, and then after 2 epic wars where European powers tore the guts out of each other, we have now the USA, the USSR and now Russia, and China in the Far East. Naive people think they will just mind their knitting. They influence other nations just by existing. Military power is just part of the responsbility.....to their interests and that is just the reality.

anthonyvop

9th May 2010, 04:54

And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?
Because we can.

Just like every other country tries to influence outside their borders....even Finland.

F.Y.I. Every U.S. Embassy is considered a military installation. Embassy security is handled by the U.S. Marines and each one has a small contingent of Jar Heads.

Easy Drifter

9th May 2010, 05:27

Which would explain the 130 countries.

Mark in Oshawa

9th May 2010, 06:10

Because we can.

Just like every other country tries to influence outside their borders....even Finland.

F.Y.I. Every U.S. Embassy is considered a military installation. Embassy security is handled by the U.S. Marines and each one has a small contingent of Jar Heads.

Jarheads....don't let your son grow up to be a Marine I guess your motto? Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...lol....

Jag_Warrior

9th May 2010, 07:37

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook.

At an expenditure of $607 Billion in 2008, the United States spent more on the military than the next 14 countries COMBINED.

For those who have read more about ancient Rome than what was taught in elementary or high school, you know that the Roman Empire did not fall (solely) because of some hairy character named Atilla. He just laid some of the final blows to a sick and bloated empire... that was already in deep decline. Rome had neither the ability to govern its (non-income) producing territories, nor the support of its (once proud) citizens. It had spread itself too thin and didn't possess an effective means of governing, balancing its budget or providing for its people (near the end, Roman infrastructure projects became almost nonexistent). Sound familiar? :dozey: And just like now, there were those who believed that it was the duty of Rome to maintain the illusion of empire and power... even though trying to maintain that illusion is what helped to kill the (Western) Roman Empire.

Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two, this path that we're currently on will not lead to a good place - of that much I feel certain. And on that point, I agree with the Tea Party people. If they could just rid themselves of the ignorant rabble, loons that seem attracted to conspiracy theories and GOP'er plants, more (sane & sensible) people would probably get involved in that movement.

Tazio

9th May 2010, 08:13

This is a rather old article I'm only posted it because it is a little different slant on what I've read so far.
The U.S. Military Idustrial Complex in many areas is directly linked to the livelihood of the local businesses. I think "Ike" suggested we be prudent, and cautious, as well as benevolent in this arena when he was leaving office in 1961.
BTW this is not a knock on Bush. Just an example of what could happen in every country that our empire maintains a substancial military pressence long enough to create an economically dependant community around it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1299315,00.html

Despite substantial anger among the German populace at US actions in Iraq (photo), and protests at some bases, many Germans see the economic considerations outweighing moral ones when it comes to a continuing presence of American troops in the neighborhood. Officials have begun doing what they can to convince the Americans to stay

Tazio

9th May 2010, 08:20

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook.

At an expenditure of $607 Billion in 2008, the United States spent more on the military than the next 14 countries COMBINED.
For those who have read more about ancient Rome than what was taught in elementary or high school, you know that the Roman Empire did not fall (solely) because of some hairy character named Atilla. He just laid some of the final blows to a sick and bloated empire... that was already in deep decline. Rome had neither the ability to govern its (non-income) producing territories, nor the support of its (once proud) citizens. It had spread itself too thin and didn't possess an effective means of governing, balancing its budget or providing for its people (near the end, Roman infrastructure projects became almost nonexistent). Sound familiar? :dozey: And just like now, there were those who believed that it was the duty of Rome to maintain the illusion of empire and power... even though trying to maintain that illusion is what helped to kill the (Western) Roman Empire.

Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two, this path that we're currently on will not lead to a good place - of that much I feel certain. And on that point, I agree with the Tea Party people. If they could just rid themselves of the ignorant rabble, loons that seem attracted to conspiracy theories and GOP'er plants, more (sane & sensible) people would probably get involved in that movement.
J0Dj3d_bdNM

Jag_Warrior

9th May 2010, 08:34

J0Dj3d_bdNM

I like that.

Glad to see you back. :up:

dunes

9th May 2010, 08:55

On top of landing,refueling,and embassys we also hold a base in every country we've been into a war with. This is for far more sophisticated reasons.
There are "too many naval vessels"- because the Navy has a complete machine shop set up in half of its fleet. We can remanufacture everything we have in our arsenal while at sea. There not just for transporting troops and veichels.Theres also the red cross and hospital ships all beloning to the US Navy that have aided in many tragic event that had nothing to do with us. and most people don't even know we were there.Not to mention the clean ups and assistance we provide for other universal tragedies.

Before someone says WE spend too much or have too much maybe they might look back through history and see just what we've done for everyone elses safety. Furthermopre there is alot of open water and many possible places if an attack started at three different locations on the globe we could be at all of them in an instant because most likely were allready there or close by.

Sorry but after all we've provided for all the other nations and people I would think people would be grearful that we are that accesable and ready for them.

Eki

9th May 2010, 10:17

This is a rather old article I'm only posted it because it is a little different slant on what I've read so far.
The U.S. Military Idustrial Complex in many areas is directly linked to the livelihood of the local businesses. I think "Ike" suggested we be prudent, and cautious, as well as benevolent in this arena when he was leaving office in 1961.
BTW this is not a knock on Bush. Just an example of what could happen in every country that our empire maintains a substancial military pressence long enough to create an economically dependant community around it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1299315,00.html
Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.

Eki

9th May 2010, 10:26

On top of landing,refueling,and embassys we also hold a base in every country we've been into a war with. This is for far more sophisticated reasons.
Not in Vietnam, as far as I know. Yet the Vietnamese have not taken over the world.

Tazio

9th May 2010, 13:38

Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.I agree with you Eki. IMO they need to quit us "cold turkey"

Mark in Oshawa

9th May 2010, 16:26

Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.

Easy for a Finn to say ...lol.

Canada's economy is tied due to Geography to the US. We have the best recovery underway of all the G-8 despite the slow economy in the south, but there is a limit to how this can happen when we are one tenth the population of our neighbour to the south and they are our largest trading partners. Making more trade with China, Japan and the EC works, but geography being what it is, it isn't as natural a trade relationship.

America isn't going to die or fade off into the sunset. They just will adapt and move on....because unlike the old USSR, the economy of the US has a lot more going for it and a system of governing that will more or less allow it to recover...

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 22:40

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 22:44

When anyone — generally people in possession of a feeling of insecurity — says their country is being 'destroyed' by anything, their argument has no credibility. The US will still be around in 50, 100, 150 years' time, come what may. People say the same about the UK. It won't happen, no matter who is in power. This is not complacency, merely common sense. And if it's meant figuratively, then those saying it should be more circumspect in their use of language.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 22:45

Not in Vietnam, as far as I know. Yet the Vietnamese have not taken over the world.
You want an honest opinion about Vietnam, come to St. Cloud ,Minn, and visit the Vietnam War memorial dedicated to the Vietnamese and surrounding countries soldiers who fought and died with the U.S. and then were forced to leave by Dem. cutting and running.
When they have their memorial service, fill them with your idyllic bs that say they were wrong to fight, and try to save their countries.
You may get an earful, or eyeful of fist.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 22:49

You want an honest opinion about Vietnam, come to St. Cloud ,Minn, and visit the Vietnam War memorial dedicated to the Vietnamese and surrounding countries soldiers who fought and died with the U.S. and then were forced to leave by Dem. cutting and running.
When they have their memorial service, fill them with your idyllic bs that say they were wrong to fight, and try to save their countries.
You may get an earful, or eyeful of fist.

It is nice to know that alternative viewpoints regarding the nation's role in conflicts are tolerated so openly in the American heartland.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 22:51

Easy for a Finn to say ...lol.

Canada's economy is tied due to Geography to the US. We have the best recovery underway of all the G-8 despite the slow economy in the south, but there is a limit to how this can happen when we are one tenth the population of our neighbour to the south and they are our largest trading partners. Making more trade with China, Japan and the EC works, but geography being what it is, it isn't as natural a trade relationship.

America isn't going to die or fade off into the sunset. They just will adapt and move on....because unlike the old USSR, the economy of the US has a lot more going for it and a system of governing that will more or less allow it to recover...
If the U.S. collapses it will be destroyed from within, not any where else.

The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country.

The special treatment of muslim concerns, and the wetback cancer, now given by gov. and major press, is just a start.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 22:53

If the U.S. collapses it will be destroyed from within, not any where else.

The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country.

The special treatment of muslim concerns, and the wetback cancer, now given by gov. and major press, is just a start.

'Collapse'? Here we go again. See my post above.

And maybe you might care to re-write this sentence — 'The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country' — in English. I genuinely haven't a clue what you're saying, and I have read it a couple of times. I'm not being sarcastic here, either.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:04

It is nice to know that alternative viewpoints regarding the nation's role in conflicts are tolerated so openly in the American heartland.
They fought and died fiercly for their countries; they have earned the right to deal with asininely annoying liberal bs in any matter they choose.

The U.S. government finally gave in and stopped trying to prosecute one of the most beloved Hmong military officers for supposedly trying to overthrow the gov. that exists there now.
I do not know if it was for a lack of decent evidence, or the strong negative respoins the U.S. actions was getting from the Hmong community.
Bob
PS-- it was George Bush dick-heads trying to prosecute.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:11

They fought and died fiercly for their countries; they have earned the right to deal with asininely annoying liberal bs in any matter they choose.

The same applies the other way round, for instance when forces are sent into battle by a right-wing administration for undesirable reasons, and die unnecessarily as a result. And not all members of the armed forces of any nation are reactionary conservatives, it must be pointed out. To suggest that they are all of like political mind is simply untrue. In historical terms, it is also deeply revisionist.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:13

'Collapse'? Here we go again. See my post above.

And maybe you might care to re-write this sentence — 'The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country' — in English. I genuinely haven't a clue what you're saying, and I have read it a couple of times. I'm not being sarcastic here, either.

The method of gaining political ground used by liberals, and repuclican-in-name-only catering to more liberal voters, rather than the conservative republican base which amountes to gaining votes from one of the groups within the, loudly proclaimed, diverse societies, which are gaining strength by being separate from, rather than part of U.S. society as a whole, will hasten fracturing the country from within; thereby causing a collapse or implosion from within, as each society devotes efforts to only that which serves their separate culture, without regard, to the impact on others or simply if it is good for the country as a whole.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:16

The method of gaining political ground used by liberals, and repuclican-in-name-only catering to more liberal voters, rather than the conservative republican base which amountes to gaining votes from one of the groups within the, loudly proclaimed, diverse societies, which are gaining strength by being separate from, rather than part of U.S. society as a whole, will hasten fracturing the country from within; thereby causing a collapse or implosion from within, as each society devotes efforts to only that which serves their separate culture, without regard, to the impact on others or simply if it is good for the country as a whole.

OK, I just about get it now, although more than one sentence would be best. I think it's paranoid rubbish of the highest order, don't get me wrong, but I do vaguely understand it.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:19

The same applies the other way round, for instance when forces are sent into battle by a right-wing administration for undesirable reasons, and die unnecessarily as a result. And not all members of the armed forces of any nation are reactionary conservatives, it must be pointed out. To suggest that they are all of like political mind is simply untrue. In historical terms, it is also deeply revisionist.
It is THEIR memorial commemorating THEIR fellow soldiers; if some dick-head wants to have a history revising snit-fit, he/she can do somewhere else.\-------------------------

The press were able to report, and it is liberal, no Hmong-- who thought that the former General should be prosecuted.
Had there been any the liberals would have found them quickly.
So if you think that the North were the good guys in Nam, Laos and Cambodia, you have only your opinion to support that.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:25

OK, I just about get it now, although more than one sentence would be best. I think it's paranoid rubbish of the highest order, don't get me wrong, but I do vaguely understand it.
Come live in the U.S.; racial prejudice may be down, but ethnic prejudice exceeds the extremely high rate it once had before hating Negroes became popular.
As a youth, I knew rabid ethnic hatred for over a decade before anyone in my community ever uttered a bad word about Negroes.
It is back and it is thriving and as taxes are being used for special groups, unless the common good takes claim over the good of the minority group, it will destroy this country.
Those who think it cannot happen, are to a good degree, the same to thought the Soviet Union could not collapse in a single year.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:26

It is THEIR memorial commemorating THEIR fellow soldiers; if some dick-head wants to have a history revising snit-fit, he/she can do somewhere else.

Listen, I think Vietnam was disgusting, but do you really think that THOSE (why the capitals in your post, by the way? They run the risk of making your posts inarticulately aggressive) of us on the left who disagree with such things go around causing a disturbance at war memorials?

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:27

Come live in the U.S.; racial prejudice may be down, but ethnic prejudice exceeds the extremely high rate it once had before hating Negroes became popular.
As a youth, I knew rabid ethnic hatred for over a decade before anyone in my community ever uttered a bad word about Negroes.
It is back and it is thriving and as taxes are being used for special groups, unless the common good takes claim over the good of the minority group, it will destroy this country.
Those who think it cannot happen, are to a good degree, the same to thought the Soviet Union could not collapse in a single year.

Ah, so you are a racist. Nice to have it out in the open. In fact, that is surely the most open statement of racism anyone has dared post on here. Well done.

Jag_Warrior

9th May 2010, 23:27

Before someone says WE spend too much or have too much maybe they might look back through history and see just what we've done for everyone elses safety. Furthermopre there is alot of open water and many possible places if an attack started at three different locations on the globe we could be at all of them in an instant because most likely were allready there or close by.

Sorry but after all we've provided for all the other nations and people I would think people would be grearful that we are that accesable and ready for them.

With all due respect, the exact same argument could have been used 1600 years ago in the Roman Senate. In fact, it probably was...

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:30

With all due respect, the exact same argument could have been used 1600 years ago in the Roman Senate. In fact, it probably was...

Do the message boards of the day contain evidence of same?

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:34

Ah, so you are a racist. Nice to have it out in the open. In fact, that is surely the most open statement of racism anyone has dared post on here. Well done.
Such as?

Jag_Warrior

9th May 2010, 23:36

No it is the entitlements and asinine laws or edicts that come with them that are destroying this country.
Military spending is always flatulated forth by liberals, as evil, (they want to flush more of that money down the entitlement toilet) but is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The only radical thing coming from the TEA party concern, is bogus claims put forth by the liberal press.

You obviously believe in sacred cows. I'll eat a steak, no matter what cow it comes from.

The data provided is fact, not opinion. The assessment that followed was my opinion... just as yours was your opinion. I do not share your opinion. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to fund and support the safety of every other nation in the world, with us contributing MORE than all of the other (major) nation COMBINED. I see any nation that continues to do that, especially one with major fiscal issues, as a sucker.

To address our fiscal concerns, every cow, including those held as sacred by this group or that group, is going to have to be looked at. Otherwise, we will not get out of this. The path we are on now is not sustainable. To deny that, by glossing over it with speeches about mom & apple pie and "let freedom ring", will not solve the problem.

What I see are two sides, each with a plan that's going to spend us into oblivion.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:39

Such as?

You seem to me to suggest that the treatment suffered by what you call 'negroes' (a term that must now be considered far out of date — I can't think when I last heard it used in the modern era) can somehow be explained away as a result of some period fashion, rather than being the result of deep-seated prejudice.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:41

Listen, I think Vietnam was disgusting, but do you really think that THOSE (why the capitals in your post, by the way? They run the risk of making your posts inarticulately aggressive) of us on the left who disagree with such things go around causing a disturbance at war memorials?
Yes I do.
(And that within the brackets, is only your opinion as I have noticed in forums that failure to emphasize a point, that is not important to, will cause it to be ignored by, (then corrected by "oh I missed that part") liberals.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:43

Yes I do.
(And that within the brackets, is only your opinion as I have noticed in forums that failure to emphasize a point, that is not important to, will cause it to be ignored by, (then corrected by "oh I missed that part") liberals.

Again, as you get angrier, your sentences (i.e. the second one here) become increasingly devoid of punctuation, and therefore sense.

Your first statement here, by the way, is beneath contempt. Are you saying that I have ever, or would ever, do so? I would happily argue a point with anyone, but to do so at a war memorial would be deeply inappropriate. I trust you will apologise.

Bob Riebe

9th May 2010, 23:49

You seem to me to suggest that the treatment suffered by what you call 'negroes' (a term that must now be considered far out of date — I can't think when I last heard it used in the modern era) can somehow be explained away as a result of some period fashion, rather than being the result of deep-seated prejudice.

I have six half-black, nephews and nieces, so do not tell anything about race relations.
Until some liberal twits in later years decided that they did not like the correct word for their race, and substituted "black" they were called Negroes by everyone, including themselves, and I have spoken with Negroes, in the "modern" day who will never accept that there was any reason to be called a color rather than a race.
The term white is far more racially prejudiced as Negroe as there is NO white race; therefore it is strictly a racist term; although it does help polically to separate Latinos, East Indians, Persians etc. as they are all Caucasians.

BDunnell

9th May 2010, 23:54

I have six half-black, nephews and nieces, so do not tell anything about race relations.
Until some liberal twits in later years decided that they did not like the correct word for their race, and substituted "black" they were called Negroes by everyone, including themselves, and I have spoken with Negroes, in the "modern" day who will never accept that there was any reason to be called a color rather than a race.
The term white is far more racially prejudiced as Negroe as there is NO white race; therefore it is strictly a racist term; although it does help polically to separate Latinos, East Indians, Persians etc. as they are all Caucasians.

OK, I apologise for having jumped to any conclusions without knowing anything of your background. However, you do nothing to disabuse me of your notion that the abuse such individuals suffered was something other than deep-seated. What exactly was the rabid ethnic hatred you experienced in your community, of which you wrote before?

Rollo

10th May 2010, 02:31

I do not share your opinion. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to fund and support the safety of every other nation in the world,

Legally Okinawa is a very different place though; nobody has ever addressed where the responsibility lies.

Famously under Section 9 of the US imposed constitution of Japan it says:
2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
The Constitution of Japan was ordered by MacArthur to be re-written after he outright rejected Joji Matsumoto's Commissions draft and had it mostly written by two of his own staff Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney.

The question is, does the United States therefore have the responsibility to provide military security, when they're responsible for denying Japan the right to maintain their own military?

Is the Japanese Self-Defence Force even legal in the first place? Or is it an extension of the Police Force as they suuggest that they are?

And if the USA are not responsible for providing military security, then why have they not removed their forces under Section 12 of the Potsdam Agreement:The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
Ie, if the US Force in Okinawa is not an "occupying force", then what the hell is it doing there?

None of these questions have ever been answered properly by anyone, and as such, the bases at Okinawa are still maintained, and with plans to move to bigger facilities.

Jag_Warrior

10th May 2010, 03:12

Do the message boards of the day contain evidence of same?

Kind of off topic, but there actually is a Latin message board where this has been a long running topic of discussion. I've looked at it before, but most of the participants seem to be PhD's or PhD candidates, so they're waaaay out of my league.

I just find it funny (in a sad sort of way) that we have this weird parallel. And I'm sure that the lesson has been repeated many more times than just this one example. But when the Empire was "working" (with money coming in), Rome grew stronger. When the Empire began to bleed aureus and ignore infrastructure, the sun began to set. It's unfortunate that the teaching of the Latin classics ended in the U.S. with my mother's generation, approximately 70 years ago. But we can't even learn from our own (more recent) history, so I guess it would be too much to expect for us to learn from guys who wore skirts and talked funny.

41% of the total, global military spending... :rolleyes: Well, as long as the Chinese will keep letting us borrow money (and allow us to buy some of the rare earth minerals they're stocking up on, that are required to build our high tech firecrackers), we'll be OK. Yeah. Sure, we will. I wonder if there'll be some guy on a message board 2,000 years from now, who will think that we were too cool for school. More than likely he'll be talking about the Romans too... and we'll just be a sad, silly footnote. :dozey:

Jag_Warrior

10th May 2010, 03:24

The question is, does the United States therefore have the responsibility to provide military security, when they're responsible for denying Japan the right to maintain their own military?

Is the Japanese Self-Defence Force even legal in the first place? Or is it an extension of the Police Force as they suuggest that they are?

None of these questions have ever been answered properly by anyone, and as such, the bases at Okinawa are still maintained, and with plans to move to bigger facilities.

Sorry, I can't answer any of those questions. But if I was Japanese, I'd keep quiet and keep a low profile on this one. Japan has the second largest economy in the world (in terms of GDP), and some of their infrastructure projects are absolutely mind-boggling. They tend to invest in themselves and their own nation first - we don't do that. Their kids are FAR more advanced in math and science than our kids. While they do have their own economic and fiscal concerns, our overall situation is worse than theirs.

IMO, we're moving toward the point where the only time you'd call on an American is if you need someone with a strong back and a weak mind. Maybe we'll get it together before it's too late. But the average American spends more time watching American Idol and the Real Housewives of Orange County than in digging for information and data (not opinions presented by network talking heads in echo chambers). As long as you spend that borrowed money on their sacred cow, you'll keep the average American voter fat, dumb and happy.

Bob Riebe

10th May 2010, 06:35

OK, I apologise for having jumped to any conclusions without knowing anything of your background. However, you do nothing to disabuse me of your notion that the abuse such individuals suffered was something other than deep-seated. What exactly was the rabid ethnic hatred you experienced in your community, of which you wrote before?
In my particular area, as an example, there is/was a town of several hundred people which had two schools, one which was used by the Bohemians (that is how they were called by all) and the other by the Polish.

Most ethnic separations were also enhanced by Protestant vs. Roman Catholic, but more often than not, one religion was of one ethnic group, and the other of another, often crossing national boundaries in the "homelands".
You would hear "damn (pick an ethic group) more often than "damn catholic" etc.
Disdain for Bohemians, Pomeranians, Bavarians etc. was the norm, not to even address Spicks, Micks, Kikes and other more colorful names.
I would say near all grandparents and at least half of the parents in my town of five thousand people, could speak a foreign language and when they did, it was so the children would have no idea of what was being said, which probably also why the ability to speak another language died with our parents, as if we asked what was being said, we were told children were to be seen and not heard.

To marry across these boundaries meant one spouse was ostracized from the ones family forever.
The tone of hatred I heard in adults, who thought we were not listening was so vehement that people almost spit when speaking of the other side.

This faded away rapidly, when a single race became an easy target for an us verses them attitude, due to Pres. Johnsons
( who took the centuries over-due civil rights act and destroyed the good it would do, )
making one race, and one race only recipients of government handouts. This quickly made them dependent on and butt-boys of the government, whilst also making them subject of scorn as their very high standard of moral behavior collapsed into a mo' money hand-out attitude, highlighted by drug pushers and pimps becoming status symbols in some neighborhoods.

There was a show broadcast here on public television, some years back, about the tar-shack ghettos, for lack of a better term, in the Twin Cities in Minn. where immigrants and those on hard times lived till they could find a better job and move out.
There, as opposed to areas with more fortunate occupants, there were no problems due to race or ethnic group, they lived side by side and helped as people in neighborhoods used to do in Minn.(Of course this was also at a time when immigrants put priority status on learning to speak English, and speak it well, so they could communicate and function well with the society they were joining.)

The show also tells that, that, all came to a rapid halt when Johnson's Great Society rules were implemented, as one group suddenly had access to government help that others in equal dire straights did not.
The city decided to fix that by destroying the poor neighbor hoods and building tenement housing which were later torn down when they turned into dens infested with pimps and pushers.

Eki

10th May 2010, 07:04

You want an honest opinion about Vietnam, come to St. Cloud ,Minn, and visit the Vietnam War memorial dedicated to the Vietnamese and surrounding countries soldiers who fought and died with the U.S. and then were forced to leave by Dem. cutting and running.
When they have their memorial service, fill them with your idyllic bs that say they were wrong to fight, and try to save their countries.
You may get an earful, or eyeful of fist.
The North Vietnamese also wanted to save their country. They wanted it more and succeeded. The difference was only what they wanted to save their country from.

GridGirl

10th May 2010, 09:29

Diego Garcia.....please discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia

Eki

10th May 2010, 10:07

Diego Garcia.....please discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia
Interesting. I didn't even know the place existed. If that had happened in Europe , the media would have been all over it. And if it had been done by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK governments would have been all over it too.

Bit like the Bikini Atoll case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

The Micronesian inhabitants, who numbered about 200 before the United States relocated them after World War II, ate fish, shellfish, bananas, and coconuts. A large majority of the Bikinians were moved to a single island named Kili as part of their temporary homestead, but remain there today and receive compensation from the United States for their survival.[7]

In 1968 the United States declared Bikini habitable and started bringing a small group of Bikinians back to their homes in the early 1970s as a test. In 1978, however, the islanders were removed again when strontium-90 in their bodies reached dangerous levels after a French team of scientists did additional tests on the island.[8] It was not uncommon for women to experience faulty pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths and damage to their offspring as a result of the nuclear testing on Bikini.[9] The United States provided $150 million as a settlement for damages caused by the nuclear testing program.[10]
Since the early 1980s the leaders of the Bikinian community have insisted that, because of what happened in the 1970s with the aborted return to their atoll, they want the entire island of Bikini excavated and the soil removed to a depth of about 15 inches. Scientists involved with the Bikinians have stressed that while the excavation method would rid the island of the cesium-137, the removal of the topsoil would severely damage the environment, turning it into a virtual wasteland of wind-swept sand. The Council, however, feeling a responsibility toward their people, have repeatedly contended that a scrape of Bikini is the only way to guarantee safe living conditions on their island for their future generations.[citation needed]

anthonyvop

10th May 2010, 13:18

Interesting. I didn't even know the place existed. If that had happened in Europe , the media would have been all over it. And if it had been done by the Soviet Union, the US and the UK governments would have been all over it too.

Bit like the Bikini Atoll case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

Jealous, aren't we?

Whenever I listen to people bashing the US and calling it "evil" and "imperialist" I always ask 2 things.

1: Name me one superpower that has behaved better than the US!

2; Think of the alternative! Imagine if a country like Russia or China was Dominant.

Eki

10th May 2010, 14:55

Jealous, aren't we?
I'm not, how about you?

Whenever I listen to people bashing the US and calling it "evil" and "imperialist" I always ask 2 things.

1: Name me one superpower that has behaved better than the US!

That's like asking someone to name one supervillain who has behaved better than Dr. Evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Evil

2; Think of the alternative! Imagine if a country like Russia or China was Dominant.
That's like telling someone with syfilis: "So, you have syfilis. Think of the alternative! Imagine if you had AIDS."

Nobody has to be dominant. We should leave that to the UN General Assembly (the Security Council should be dismantled) and decide there democratically how to run the world.

Roamy

10th May 2010, 16:49

Bob Riebe

10th May 2010, 19:16

The North Vietnamese also wanted to save their country. They wanted it more and succeeded. The difference was only what they wanted to save their country from.
It was noth ther country anymore than South Korea is North Korea's country.
Bob
PS-- Tell the Hmong how they belonged to North Vietnam; the N. Viets.

anthonyvop

10th May 2010, 19:26

I'm not, how about you?
Well you statements beg to differ.

That's like asking someone to name one supervillain who has behaved better than Dr. Evil.

Ahhhh.....Typical reply when the answer hurts.

That's like telling someone with syfilis: "So, you have syfilis. Think of the alternative! Imagine if you had AIDS."

So Syphilis and AIDS are equal in your mind?

Nobody has to be dominant.

As long as there are free men there will always be dominant nations. The sooner you grasp that concept the happier you will be,

We should leave that to the UN General Assembly (the Security Council should be dismantled) and decide there democratically how to run the world.

Really? You want a Country like Iran telling you how you should treat women?
Good thing most Finns don't think like you do.

Eki

10th May 2010, 19:40

So Syphilis and AIDS are equal in your mind?

If the US, Russia and China are equal in your mind. I meant that a lesser evil is still evil.

Really? You want a Country like Iran telling you how you should treat women?
Good thing most Finns don't think like you do.
FYI, there are about 200 countries in the world, and Iran is just one country. They'd need over 100 countries to support them to have their say. So would the US. It would be a popularity contest, not a contest of which one is more scary.

Eki

10th May 2010, 19:43

So Syphilis and AIDS are equal in your mind?

If the US, Russia and China are equal in your mind. I meant that a lesser evil is still evil.

Jag_Warrior

10th May 2010, 21:55

I think all the bases in other countries except our territories should operate with a profit. South Korea should pay for our presence. If the base is not profitable then close it.
Also due to our economic condition all foreign aid should be suspended.

I agree with that. Not so much for profit, but at least the operating costs... especially in the case of certain (most) nations where it benefits them a LOT more than the American taxpayer, who is picking up the bill.

Before I'd pay a G.I. to walk the line in some desolate crap hole, protecting someone else's freedoms (or whatever made up term people want to dream up), I'd have that guy working on a bridge or road here... or if still in the military, I'd have him on the border with Mexico with his .50 cal trained on a Zeta across the border. People might have an issue with this, but I'd put him in Chicago or south central L.A., patrolling a drug infested area, which is (literally) being terrorized by street gangs.

It royally pisses me off when we send our troops overseas, at OUR EXPENSE, yet we have budget issues and more than enough problems right here to deal with. That DOES NOT mean that I'm for eliminating the military presence overseas. Nor do I fall for the (hyerbolic) argument that some like to use: anyone who isn't in favor of spending us into a military spending hole is an isolationist. I'm not an isolationist, nor am I a protectionist (in regard to trade). But I do not believe that we should be taken advantage of at every turn. And like I said, anyone who willingly bends over and takes it, while others get a virtual free ride, is a SUCKER! And looking at the amount we spend on the global military presence, where we spend it, the % of GDP that it represents and the fact that a lot of the countries where we have troops have unfair trade practices... we are SUCKERS!!!

"Thank you, sir... may I have another?" should be our new motto.

Bob Riebe

10th May 2010, 23:44

It was noth ther country anymore than South Korea is North Korea's country.
Bob
PS-- Tell the Hmong how they belonged to North Vietnam; the N. Viets.

OT-- this Sony computer has a jumping cursor that no one knows how to fix (that is how some truly odd typos come to be as I jdo not anglways fix all before printi {the previous words, plus the above sentence exist because it jumped as I wrote this}
Have any of you this problem?
How can it be fixed as the "pros" seem clueless

It is goinig nuts as I write this, with the worst be the d anwhole page being marke and lerased it I hit key not associated with deletion.

Help.

Rollo

11th May 2010, 01:07

I think all the bases in other countries except our territories should operate with a profit. South Korea should pay for our presence. If the base is not profitable then close it.
Also due to our economic condition all foreign aid should be suspended.

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

dunes

11th May 2010, 02:41

I'm not backing the staement made about profit just meerly stating Okinowa is a refueling station for our pacific fleet.we also help thier enomomy even if they don't want us there, they surely take our money.

airshifter

11th May 2010, 04:31

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

Okinawans for the most part don't even want to be part of Japan. But the fact of the matter is that they are, and Japan wants the US on Okinawa.

Rollo

11th May 2010, 05:40

Okinawans for the most part don't even want to be part of Japan. But the fact of the matter is that they are, and Japan wants the US on Okinawa.

Really?

One of Yukio Hatoyama's reasons for being elected to Prime Minister (and indeed the whole DJP being elected to government) was the total removal of American forces from Japanese territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1
Japan’s Democrats pledged during the campaign to relocate the base off Okinawa or even out of Japan altogether.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Japan-PM-Wont-Remove-US-Okinawa-Airbase-92795599.html
Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama broke a key campaign pledge Tuesday, telling the people on the southern island Okinawa that a U.S. Marine base would not be removed completely.

He apologized to Okinawans, saying some U.S. Marines must remain on Okinawa to provide deterrence and maintain the U.S.-Japan alliance. He was speaking after talks with local officials and residents, who reacted angrily to his comments.

Japan went to the polls with this as a key issue; the people spoke on this one, therefore the government has a mandate to do something about it.

Your statement is materially wrong.

Tazio

11th May 2010, 13:40

I agree with that. Not so much for profit, but at least the operating costs... especially in the case of certain (most) nations where it benefits them a LOT more than the American taxpayer, who is picking up the bill.

Before I'd pay a G.I. to walk the line in some desolate crap hole, protecting someone else's freedoms (or whatever made up term people want to dream up), I'd have that guy working on a bridge or road here... or if still in the military, I'd have him on the border with Mexico with his .50 cal trained on a Zeta across the border. People might have an issue with this, but I'd put him in Chicago or south central L.A., patrolling a drug infested area, which is (literally) being terrorized by street gangs.

It royally pisses me off when we send our troops overseas, at OUR EXPENSE, yet we have budget issues and more than enough problems right here to deal with. That DOES NOT mean that I'm for eliminating the military presence overseas. Nor do I fall for the (hyerbolic) argument that some like to use: anyone who isn't in favor of spending us into a military spending hole is an isolationist. I'm not an isolationist, nor am I a protectionist (in regard to trade). But I do not believe that we should be taken advantage of at every turn. And like I said, anyone who willingly bends over and takes it, while others get a virtual free ride, is a SUCKER! And looking at the amount we spend on the global military presence, where we spend it, the % of GDP that it represents and the fact that a lot of the countries where we have troops have unfair trade practices... we are SUCKERS!!!

"Thank you, sir... may I have another?" should be our new motto.At least it's reassuring to know that domestically we are a highly evolved, tolerant, law abiding and peaceful Republic. :confused:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_45e04c46-5c28-11df-88c2-001cc4c002e0.html

Eki

11th May 2010, 13:51

At least it's reassuring to know that domestically we are a highly evolved, tolerant, law abiding and peaceful Republic. :confused:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_45e04c46-5c28-11df-88c2-001cc4c002e0.html

Sounds like the Taliban in Afghanistan:

Two medical marijuana businesses in Billings were firebombed and tagged with graffiti reading “NOT IN OUR TOWN” over the last two days, rattling their owners and leaving others outraged in advance of a City Council meeting to decide whether to restrict the industry’s growth.

Especially if you add a couple of abortion clinics to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

anthonyvop

11th May 2010, 19:35

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

We won it.

I was against the return of Okinawa to Japan to begin with.

Eki

11th May 2010, 20:30

We won it.

I was against the return of Okinawa to Japan to begin with.
And the Soviet Union won Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, China won Tibet, Castro won Cuba, etc.

Jag_Warrior

11th May 2010, 21:50

At least it's reassuring to know that domestically we are a highly evolved, tolerant, law abiding and peaceful Republic. :confused:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_45e04c46-5c28-11df-88c2-001cc4c002e0.html

No worries. No worries. We'll be fine. Within one more generation, the average American will be too fat to go out and cause any trouble anyway.
http://wizardsarebetter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fat_kid.jpg

But we'll be happy. Look at the smile on his fat little face! Unless the battle takes place at his dinner table, this roly-poly Ringo Starr wannabe won't be fightin' no wars.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/Kanake138/freakyfatkidonthedrums.gif

Another trillion $ into sh##holes like Iraq (have ya heard Saddam was a "bad man"? oh yeah, he was the only one... and he was just like Hitler too!)... and I figure Atilla can start gathering his men "at the gate". He might even want to take in the Cherry Blossom Festival in D.C. before he takes the city.

Bob Riebe

11th May 2010, 22:38

And the Soviet Union won Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, China won Tibet, Castro won Cuba, etc.
Beyond Estonia,Lithuania and Latvia, you analogy does not exist, and a good liberal U.S. president gave the former three to Russia.

Tazio

12th May 2010, 03:43

No worries. No worries. We'll be fine. Within one more generation, the average American will be too fat to go out and cause any trouble anyway.
http://wizardsarebetter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fat_kid.jpg

But we'll be happy. Look at the smile on his fat little face! Unless the battle takes place at his dinner table, this roly-poly Ringo Starr wannabe won't be fightin' no wars.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/Kanake138/freakyfatkidonthedrums.gif

Jag I read "Fast Food Nation" It's repulsive what "some" people injest, and in mass quantities.
That slop should come with warning labels just like smokes (not that it would do any good)
Here in my neck of the woods (S.D. Ca.) were considered to live above the adverage in terms of health and diet.
If that is really true it's a sad commentary on the general health of us all inclusive!

markabilly

12th May 2010, 04:46

I have known a number of racists...seems racists come in all sorts of different colors.

might be one myself, depending on how you define the term

Back home when I was growing up, had some very near and nice ancestors that truly believed in "seperate but equal" status for minorities, and worse, some even believed that for women as well. :eek:

Indeed, so very radical were these horrifying beliefs, all the good folks living around them, called them "communists" for such radically left wing insane views and never invited them to go play dress up and wear those white robes at midnight.... :(

All that is clear is that the world is going to hell, just wish i could get off before it arrives---or to MacDonald's. (thanks for sharing your family photos, Jag, makes me wish for back home)

airshifter

12th May 2010, 05:16

Really?

One of Yukio Hatoyama's reasons for being elected to Prime Minister (and indeed the whole DJP being elected to government) was the total removal of American forces from Japanese territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02japan.html?_r=1
Japan’s Democrats pledged during the campaign to relocate the base off Okinawa or even out of Japan altogether.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Japan-PM-Wont-Remove-US-Okinawa-Airbase-92795599.html
Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama broke a key campaign pledge Tuesday, telling the people on the southern island Okinawa that a U.S. Marine base would not be removed completely.

He apologized to Okinawans, saying some U.S. Marines must remain on Okinawa to provide deterrence and maintain the U.S.-Japan alliance. He was speaking after talks with local officials and residents, who reacted angrily to his comments.

Japan went to the polls with this as a key issue; the people spoke on this one, therefore the government has a mandate to do something about it.

Your statement is materially wrong.

Imagine that, a politician who didn't uphold a campaign pledge. This is movie material in the making, as it's never happened in the past! ;)

I'm more than aware of the tensions and reasons behind those tensions on Okinawa. I've seen both sides of the story, and understand why some of them want the bases moved or gone. Just as with many areas here in the US and abroad, most of those protesting made a decision to live near the base, then protest it existing.

I'm also fairly aware of the military resources on Okinawa and their capabilities, as well as why they are on Okinawa in particular. Unless Japan wants to go it alone on national security in the region, they don't have many options. And as much as they hate to admit it, the government of Japan understands those reasons and options enough to maintain bases they have long ago promised the population they would shut down. The Japanese government is much more concerned about what is seen in that aerial recon imagery than the US is, I can assure you of that.

I've also seen first hand just how lopsided the reporting on many things on Okinawa are. You hear about any major crime by a US serviceman, but they seem to forget what crimes the Okinawans commit against the US military. I've also seen the reports of economic impact on the bases closing, and just how quick those numbers were disproven when it was taking into the context of money actually made on the island, not including the money of wealthy investors that would earn it regardless.

Eki

12th May 2010, 09:56

Beyond Estonia,Lithuania and Latvia, you analogy does not exist, and a good liberal U.S. president gave the former three to Russia.
Speaking of Estonia, the Soviets believed in the power of negotiations and funnily it worked and lives were saved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

Most of the Estonian Defence Forces and the Estonian Defence League surrendered according to the orders of the Estonian Government believing that resistance was useless and were disarmed by the Red Army.[47][48] Only the Estonian Single Signal Battalion stationed in Tallinn at Raua Street showed resistance to Red Army and Communist Militia called "People's Self-Defence"[49] on June 21, 1940.[50] As the Red Army brought in additional reinforcements supported by six armoured fighting vehicles, the battle lasted several hours until sundown. Finally the military resistance was ended with negotiations and the Single Signal Battalion surrendered and was disarmed.[51] There were 2 dead Estonian servicemen, Aleksei Männikus and Johannes Mandre, and several wounded on the Estonian side and about 10 killed and more wounded on the Soviet side.[52][53] The Soviet militia that participated in the battle was led by Nikolai Stepulov.[54]

They could have just bombed the sh!t out of the Estonian resistance until they were all dead. That's the US recipe.

Tazio

12th May 2010, 15:18

They could have just bombed the sh!t out of the Estonian resistance until they were all dead. That's the US recipe.Not at that point in time Eki.
That kind of behavior was championed by Japan. See "Rape of Nanking"

There was also a bloke named Hitler that misbehaved in that time of reference!
You have to go back at least as far as “The Spanish American War” to find that level of aggression commonly referred to as Manifest Destiny!

Easy Drifter

12th May 2010, 18:41

I know if I ever got into a firefight with Eki on my side I would want him where I could see him, not behind me! :p

Bob Riebe

12th May 2010, 19:18

Speaking of Estonia, the Soviets believed in the power of negotiations and funnily it worked and lives were saved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

They could have just bombed the sh!t out of the Estonian resistance until they were all dead. That's the US recipe.
Again the analogy exists only in your faulty logic.

Although, Eki is correct back after WWII, how the ALLIES, not just the U.S. handled resistance. If armed resistance was met, the village was shelled, or the occupants of any and all villages were told that it would be s shelled if any resistance was met.
One of the facts of WWII that is rarely told.

As Russia was one of the ALLIES, Estonia knew they had no chance, period.

Bob Riebe

12th May 2010, 19:22

I know if I ever got into a firefight with Eki on my side I would want him where I could see him, not behind me! :p
Do you remember the Monty Python skit where they would call out if anyone is hiding behind a shrub, and then a voice from behind the shrub would call out "nO!" after whch the shrub would blow up.

Eki is one of those behind those shrubs.

Eki

12th May 2010, 20:05

Again the analogy exists only in your faulty logic.

Although, Eki is correct back after WWII, how the ALLIES, not just the U.S. handled resistance. If armed resistance was met, the village was shelled, or the occupants of any and all villages were told that it would be s shelled if any resistance was met.
One of the facts of WWII that is rarely told.

As Russia was one of the ALLIES, Estonia knew they had no chance, period.
That was in June 1940. The Soviet Union wasn't one of the allies yet at that time.

Jag_Warrior

12th May 2010, 21:37

Jag I read "Fast Food Nation" It's repulsive what "some" people injest, and in mass quantities.
That slop should come with warning labels just like smokes (not that it would do any good)
Here in my neck of the woods (S.D. Ca.) were considered to live above the adverage in terms of health and diet.
If that is really true it's a sad commentary on the general health of us all inclusive!

I think some time later today, Bloomberg is going to have a report on the economic cost of obesity in the U.S. It's a disturbing trend... and a problem of our own making.

The desire to spend more than 4% of GDP on military expenditures, which represents 41% of the global total, is also a problem of our own making.

We have a good many other long term problems too, of course (where do U.S. kids rank globally in math and science now, something like 25th or 27th?). But as is demonstrated in this thread, as long as a problem is guarded by someone's sacred cow, it will likely never be addressed.

AAReagles

27th May 2010, 18:19

Without knowing more about the bases it is hard to say if they are really needed…. Some may be just radar stations or satellite tracking stations...

Some may be and quite likely are, basically refueling stations for either planes or ships... Just the same 700 seems awfully high and so does 130 countries.

Do they include bases in the US in the 700?... Do they also count the US Coast Guard?... Do they also count bases such as the NORAD base in North Bay, Ont. which is a CFB base but has US personnal assigned there?
The 130 countries is harder to understand.

The reference of “empire” was something I have heard before on a few occasions but it seems to be a more prevalent topic nowadays, than it was say 20 years ago; when 24-hour news sources (armed with their talking-heads) were in their infancy and the internet was yet something to be established in most societies around the globe.

The bases in geographical and operational objectives vary in size, of course. So without investing an extraordinary amount of time researching such precise detail, I should mention that I was basically concerned about, (and have been for quite some time actually) that we (the US) have appeared on occasion to overextend ourselves politically, as well as financially with our armed forces.

This is something that I have given some thought about since our success (with a low casualty rate) in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) – due to the fact that the US public would be more willing to embrace combat operations as a result. Which I believe is a dangerous manner of being complacent about our activities overseas.

I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not.... As for the Navy and the carriers.... They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level...But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.

Yes, I agree. I do want to see the US maintain some bases for the purpose of GPS technological-related capabilities. It’s the amount of ground troops and the absolute necessities of (foreign) land bases that I’m focused on. Particularly since such presence – quite understandably- doesn’t endorse favorable reactions. Hence the events of 9/11.

Subsequently I believe military expenditures would be better served in major US space operations and cyber fortifications. Which the Chinese and Taliban demonstrated to us, when our systems were intercepted/breached.

... At an expenditure of $607 Billion in 2008, the United States spent more on the military than the next 14 countries COMBINED.

For those who have read more about ancient Rome than what was taught in elementary or high school... Rome had neither the ability to govern its (non-income) producing territories, nor the support of its (once proud) citizens. It had spread itself too thin and didn't possess an effective means of governing, balancing its budget or providing for its people (near the end, Roman infrastructure projects became almost nonexistent). Sound familiar?...

Unfortunately, yes. And it doesn’t seem that our foreign and domestic policies is about to change anytime soon. Due to corporate welfare… or shall I say ‘warfare’.

I’m glad that someone here remembered Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex speech, since we’re closing in on the 50th anniversary of it; and its’ haunting message is timeless as ever. Something we could learn from… should learn from.

Defense Secretary Gates recently mentioned about cutting some of the pentagon fat of bureaucracy, such as too many commanders. However I think that is just a PR appeasement maneuver.

Eki

27th May 2010, 19:30

This is something that I have given some thought about since our success (with a low casualty rate) in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) – due to the fact that the US public would be more willing to embrace combat operations as a result. Which I believe is a dangerous manner of being complacent about our activities overseas.

True. And I think the Gulf War was presented to the general public in a cleaner and more favorable way than seen by those who really were there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_and_religious_views

In interviews before his execution, documented in American Terrorist, McVeigh stated he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day in the war and celebrated. But he said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners and to see carnage on the road leaving Kuwait City after U.S. troops routed the Iraqi army. In interviews following the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War. In 1998, while in prison, McVeigh wrote an essay that criticized US foreign policy towards Iraq as being hypocritical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Bob Riebe

27th May 2010, 22:54

True. And I think the Gulf War was presented to the general public in a cleaner and more favorable way than seen by those who really were there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_and_religious_views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_DeathThe supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

The way the liberal press make a mountain out of a mole hill is just more liberal BS.
What played out in Kuwait/Iraq is the exact same thing that played out in wars since they started. The soldiers did a excellant job of making sure there was no army to fight back.
They should be praised.

Mark in Oshawa

27th May 2010, 22:56

The supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

The way the liberal press make a mountain out of a mole hill is just more liberal BS.
What played out in Kuwait/Iraq is the exact same thing that played out in wars since they started. The soldiers did a excellant job of making sure there was no army to fight back.
They should be praised.

yup...the war was on, one that the Iraqi army started. Way I see it, it is the way things happen when you pick a fight you cannot win. One of the most scary and obvious outcomes to everyone except that idiot who was running Iraq at the time.....

Eki

28th May 2010, 07:23

The supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

So is executing surrendered prisoners, it's just forbidden in the Geneva Convention, which is a bitch.

There was no need to kill fleeing Iraqis on their way from Kuwait to Iraq, because the purpose of the war was just that, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and that was exactly what they were doing.

Easy Drifter

28th May 2010, 07:47

A retreating army is still an army no matter how disorganized they appear to be. You do not give them a chance to regroup General Eki. Back to buck private.
Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?

Mark

28th May 2010, 08:38

Roamy

28th May 2010, 08:42

So is executing surrendered prisoners, it's just forbidden in the Geneva Convention, which is a bitch.

There was no need to kill fleeing Iraqis on their way from Kuwait to Iraq, because the purpose of the war was just that, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and that was exactly what they were doing.

I take it you didn't like the cluster bombs ! But the kuwaiti who had to watch the iraqi dick his wife and daughters really liked it. I thought it was pretty cool also - sure screwed up the hiway.

Mark in Oshawa

28th May 2010, 08:46

So is executing surrendered prisoners, it's just forbidden in the Geneva Convention, which is a bitch.

There was no need to kill fleeing Iraqis on their way from Kuwait to Iraq, because the purpose of the war was just that, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and that was exactly what they were doing.

I am sure the US and Brits used the same mercy the Finnish soldiers did with any Russians in 1940.

Again...you hijacked another thread with your silly notions....

Drifter is right, you never let the enemy regroup...not as long as their generals and leaders keep saying the war is still on...

Eki

28th May 2010, 11:07

Slight OT. But it's curious how 'Empire' has now become a dirty word. Back in the days of the British Empire it was seen as being, well not universally a good thing, but not com-pletely evil like it is now.

I wonder, has it been since the collapse of the British Empire and that we now learn to regret that period of our history, or more simply, since Star Wars?!
I think it was since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While the Soviet Union was alive and kicking, it was good that the US was it's counterbalance. But now that the Soviet Union is dead and gone, it's bad that the US now roams freely around the world without a counterbalance and resistance.

Eki

28th May 2010, 11:16

I am sure the US and Brits used the same mercy the Finnish soldiers did with any Russians in 1940.

The difference is that the Finnish soldiers destroyed advancing Soviet divisions, not retreating like the Americans did to Iraqi columns in Kuwait. The vehicles in this picture are facing Finland, not Russia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raate_Road

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Raate_road.jpg

Eki

28th May 2010, 12:48

"Let them go" is totally different than "let them come".

anthonyvop

28th May 2010, 15:05

The difference is that the Finnish soldiers destroyed advancing Soviet divisions, not retreating like the Americans did to Iraqi columns in Kuwait. The vehicles in this picture are facing Finland, not Russia:

So?

The Iraqis were falling back.
In your world you can only attack a facing force?
Ever hear of strategic withdrawal?
Let them go today they can turn around and kill you tomorrow.

Not to mention the Iraqis were carrying vast quantities of Kuwaiti loot.

The only people who criticize the attack against withdrawing Iraqi troops are those who already had a hatred of the U.S......Like you.

AAReagles

28th May 2010, 18:04

… I think the Gulf War was presented to the general public in a cleaner and more favorable way than seen by those who really were there:

Indeed. Yet military/political PR maneuvers will always be an ingredient during times of conflict of any sort, as was discussed in the ‘helicopter’ thread to some degree, in regards to the Freedom of Information Act being conveniently dismissed for that occasion.

My reflections on the Gulf War was more about how one technologically-advanced military made such a victory easy when matched up against a less modern element, subsequently leading folks over here – and perhaps other allied nations as well – to be relieved of not having to sustain a major number of casualties. Therefore making it more acceptable for a nation to commit itself to war. Which fortunately didn’t happen until after 9/11.

As far as Highway Hell goes… I agree with the actions of coalition forces (or American air-power if you will) to attack the retreating forces since they were not surrendering, and that some of them were escaping in military vehicles that could be recycled into another future conflict... which was going to happen as long as Saddam was alive, as Mark In Oshawa pointed out earlier.

General Colin Powell did recognize it was getting to be too much of a slaughter and advised then Pres., Bush Sr., that a cease-fire was in order, which shortly took place thereafter. Just be glad that someone like Westmoreland wasn’t in command at the time.

Slight OT. But it's curious how 'Empire' has now become a dirty word. Back in the days of the British Empire it was seen as being, well not universally a good thing, but not com-pletely evil like it is now.

I wonder, has it been since the collapse of the British Empire and that we now learn to regret that period of our history, or more simply, since Star Wars?!

Perhaps ‘empire’ is a bad word more so nowadays, where it is associated with ‘corporations’, with an increasing global population becoming more aware of it through news resources.

Though I believe that British economist Barbara Ward (1914 –1981) played a major role in reshaping our priorities - if not our conscious - as far as national interests/ambitions go:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+patriot+for+the+world:+journalist+and+scholar+Ba rbara+Ward+brought...-a0153692034

‘There are times when I feel that, in our Western world, freedom rather resembles the Biblical talent that was put in a napkin and buried in the ground. We have it-but do we use it? On the issue of freedom, the revolutions of our day are all ambiguous. The revolution of equality does not necessarily imply freedom… I believe freedom to have been one of the innate formative ideas of our Western way of life… We need to be far more imaginative in showing that we regard the right of nations to govern themselves as only the first, essential, but preliminary, step in creating the conditions in which nations can truly be free… What above all, can freedom be said to mean when the nations who talk of it most incessantly seem to have so little awareness of its wider moral dimensions?... We reap what we sow and if freedom for us is no more than the right to pursue our own self-interest, personal or national – then we can make no claim to the greatest vision of our society… Without vision we, like other peoples, will perish.’

The Rich Nations And The Poor Nations, pg., 156-159 (1962)

AAReagles

28th May 2010, 18:22

Diego Garcia.....please discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia

As Eki mentioned earlier, that is interesting, as I have only slightly heard of it as an airbase. Guam barely gets noticed in this country as well, that is, of course, if it weren't the prospective football players that come from there. Other than tourism, the US military is its' source of income.

Bikini Island even seems to get more notice, due to its' association with past nuclear detonations.

Unfortunately, like other disadvanted people, Pacific Islanders - in some areas at least - are a low priority.

Eki

28th May 2010, 19:06

So?

The Iraqis were falling back.
In your world you can only attack a facing force?
No, but you can sometimes show mercy. You'd probably say that also shooting an enemy pilot who has escaped his shot down plane with a parachute. He could always come back with a new plane.

Ever hear of strategic withdrawal?
Let them go today they can turn around and kill you tomorrow.
Very unlikely in this case.

Not to mention the Iraqis were carrying vast quantities of Kuwaiti loot.
.
So it was better to destroy the loot altogether than to let the Iraqis have it?

Easy Drifter

29th May 2010, 06:08

Eki as a general in a war (whatever diety you worship) help us all.
You would be court marshalled for failure to do your duty.
Hitler's stopping Guderian's Panzers from destroying the remants of the British Army at Dunkirk likely lost him the war.
However no one could court marshall Hitler!

ShiftingGears

29th May 2010, 06:28

No, but you can sometimes show mercy. You'd probably say that also shooting an enemy pilot who has escaped his shot down plane with a parachute. He could always come back with a new plane.

Very unlikely in this case.

So it was better to destroy the loot altogether than to let the Iraqis have it?

Such is war. Everyone would look rather foolish if the troops they let escape ended up killing them.

Bob Riebe

29th May 2010, 07:05

So is executing surrendered prisoners, it's just forbidden in the Geneva Convention, which is a bitch.

There was no need to kill fleeing Iraqis on their way from Kuwait to Iraq, because the purpose of the war was just that, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and that was exactly what they were doing.
There is no analogy, so you are babbling obtuse foolishness.

As I said you are sounding more and more like a troll.

Bob Riebe

29th May 2010, 07:08

I think it was since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While the Soviet Union was alive and kicking, it was good that the US was it's counterbalance. But now that the Soviet Union is dead and gone, it's bad that the US now roams freely around the world without a counterbalance and resistance.

As that is your opinion and nothing more, it is odd that you would make such a blatant biased, bordering of spiteful hate, statement without anything to back up your rhetoric.

Bob Riebe

29th May 2010, 07:14

General Colin Powell did recognize it was getting to be too much of a slaughter and advised then Pres., Bush Sr., that a cease-fire was in order, which shortly took place thereafter. Just be glad that someone like Westmoreland wasn’t in command at the time.

Tell that to the survivors of the people murdered by Saddam after Powell's asinine decision did not totally finish the task at hand.

Mark in Oshawa

29th May 2010, 07:45

As that is your opinion and nothing more, it is odd that you would make such a blatant biased, bordering of spiteful hate, statement without anything to back up your rhetoric.

It is his opinion, but it is based in the of course ludricious notion that both superpowers were evil.

Sane and rational people realize that the US for all its "faults" was not the same at all as the USSR..and survives as a tribute to civilized democracies over socialist dictatorships...but to Eki, and his moral equivalance, this cannot be.

F1boat

29th May 2010, 08:08

Eki

29th May 2010, 11:58

It is his opinion, but it is based in the of course ludricious notion that both superpowers were evil.

Neither one was evil in their own eyes and their allies' eyes. Both were evil in the eyes of their enemies and opposition.

Eki

29th May 2010, 12:01

Tell that to the survivors of the people murdered by Saddam after Powell's asinine decision did not totally finish the task at hand.
So, Saddam didn't have a chance to kill them because Americans killed them first. Do you think those Iraqis on the Highway of Death and their relatives were happier because they were killed by Americans and not by Saddam?

Bob Riebe

29th May 2010, 18:59

[quote="Eki"]So, Saddam didn't have a chance to kill them because Americans killed them first. Do you think those Iraqis on the Highway of Death and their relatives were happier because they were killed by Americans and not by Saddam?[/QUOTE

That statement makes no sense, what are taking about.

AAReagles

29th May 2010, 21:21

Tell that to the survivors of the people murdered by Saddam after Powell's asinine decision did not totally finish the task at hand.

Powell may be criticized for his ‘asinine’ decision, but he’s not entirely accountable for the Kurds, Shiites and other Iraqis who fell victim to Saddam’s post Desert Storm operations. Bush Sr., or shall I say his administration – made the final decision – after Powell’s assessment, or suggestion of a ‘cease-fire’.

I must say that I find that the Bush Admin., as well as UN and/or other top military commanders of the additional coalition forces made the serious error by coming to the final decision to leaving Saddam not only alive, but in power as well. Yes, there would have been a civil war then, just as we have observed after Saddam’s regime was toppled. Nevertheless it was inadvisable to expect that murderer to comply with the No-Fly-Zone, much less the UN inspections for WMD. Long story short, we should have got the job done then, not later.

Additionally, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the Bush Admin., didn’t help in the matters by encouraging the Iraqi people to rebel against such a totalitarian government, without mentioning that they themselves would be on their own.

Which is if you ask me, is all the more reason for other nations and/or peoples of the world not to trust the US on just about any matter. Same of course could be mentioned about the UN, by merely reflecting on Rwanda, but that’s another matter, of course…

... And some people wonder why the rest of the world is not so happy about them.
Well like Jag said earlier, some of us over here are fat-n-happy. Hate to say it, but it’s true. I had my head stuck in the sand for so many years because of the politics of this country. Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference. Neither one of them are any damn good.

So would a third party do the trick? Like an Independent? I don’t know. But I like how the Brits have it – putting a third dog into the pen, fighting for scraps (votes). Couldn’t make it any worse… I hope.

Eki

29th May 2010, 21:57

So would a third party do the trick? Like an Independent? I don’t know. But I like how the Brits have it – putting a third dog into the pen, fighting for scraps (votes). Couldn’t make it any worse… I hope.
I like our system. Nine parties in our parliament and four in our government, and none of them gets over 25 percent of the votes. In an environment like that, it takes compromises to get anything done. As I have said, I like balance.

AAReagles

29th May 2010, 22:00

:up: sounds good to me. If that's what works.

I doubt that will ever happen over here though - too much damn greed and ambition is involved. Which is reflected in our society with intoxicating levels.

Bob Riebe

30th May 2010, 08:06

So would a third party do the trick? Like an Independent? I don’t know. But I like how the Brits have it – putting a third dog into the pen, fighting for scraps (votes). Couldn’t make it any worse… I hope.
I would say the probably he greatest cancer is all the political or government employees who are NOT elected and damn near never get fired but collect wages and benefits that put to shame what the grunts on Wall St. get.
They remain there year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year... influencing political decisions but not responsible to the electorate that pays their wages.

In the period of supposed near depression recession with tens of thousands of hard working people unemployed, the number of govt. employees has increased and so has their wages.

Jag_Warrior

31st May 2010, 21:09

Well like Jag said earlier, some of us over here are fat-n-happy. Hate to say it, but it’s true. I had my head stuck in the sand for so many years because of the politics of this country. Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference. Neither one of them are any damn good.

So would a third party do the trick? Like an Independent? I don’t know. But I like how the Brits have it – putting a third dog into the pen, fighting for scraps (votes). Couldn’t make it any worse… I hope.

Fat, dumb and happy. ;) And getting fatter and dumber by the day. What are our kids now, something like 25th in the developed world when it comes to math and science? And childhood obesity is growing at a staggering rate! Within the next generation, we're going to have a nation of fat, lazy, stupid people... but as long as they have their X-boxes, Playstations and Wii games, at least they'll be happy.

The sheer amount of intellectual laziness is going to be our undoing. Far too many people have a greater desire to belong to a major club (which is all the Democrat and Republican parties are) than to think for themselves. And worse yet, now we have these political echo chambers (for the left and the right), so that people only have to hear things that they agree with. They are quite honestly AFRAID to hear or see anything which challenges their ingrained beliefs. I think back to the wingnuts who were afraid to send their kids to school when Obama addressed the schools last year. How pitiful is that? Afraid that the President was going to fill their kids with subliminal messages and corrupt them. People who are afraid of census workers, but don't mind that Equifax knows more about them than their own mother. That's the level of delusional paranoia that boggles the mind. I was checking out various political boards last summer and I was shocked at how many people could do nothing more than repeat the various talking points that they'd heard from the talking heads on TV and radio.

Considering our current financial state, let's just see how much longer we can sustain this level of (needless) military spending. But just like the protestors in Greece, expect the Protectors of the Sacred Cow to use every bit of foolish hyperbole as they defend the beast. Until those on the left realize that there have to be cuts to entitlements and those on the right realize that we are not the policemen of the world, we're pretty much stuck on this road to fiscal ruin, IMO.

It's a really silly movie, but watch Idiocracy if you ever get a chance. It's a throw-away film, but the premise is probably close to what we'll be facing in the near future.

anthonyvop

31st May 2010, 23:29

I like our system. Nine parties in our parliament and four in our government, and none of them gets over 25 percent of the votes. In an environment like that, it takes compromises to get anything done. As I have said, I like balance.

Of course you like it when you live in a country where anyone who disagrees with you is forbidden by law from expressing it publicly.

Bob Riebe

1st June 2010, 03:33

The liberal talk show host Jim Hightower once said, there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos; apparently there are a buch of Finlanders also.

anthonyvop

1st June 2010, 03:52

It's a really silly movie, but watch Idiocracy if you ever get a chance. It's a throw-away film, but the premise is probably close to what we'll be facing in the near future.

I saw Idiocracy. I kept thinking that it could happen if we continue to follow liberal policies. All one has to do is look at the dumbing down of our education system that is totally under control of the liberals.

Jag_Warrior

1st June 2010, 05:15

I saw Idiocracy. I kept thinking that it could happen if we continue to follow liberal policies. All one has to do is look at the dumbing down of our education system that is totally under control of the liberals.

I partially agree with you there. But it's not JUST about the liberal/feel good policies that have turned public schools into social centers, where they spend (too much, IMO) time helping kids to feel good about themselves. I know in some areas they've stopped using letter grades. The logic behind that is they don't want the dumb kid who makes an "F" to realize that he's a dumb kid (even though he probably is). They've pulled physical ed. time from some elementary schools because the fat kids get too winded. I don't have kids. But I took a friend of mine to pick up her kid and brother let me tell you, I didn't know if those were human children coming out of that building or if some two-legged piglets had escaped from a farm. Just tonight I heard a report that 1 in 3 American kids are either obese or severly overweight. Our kids cannot do math and science compared to kids from other developed nations. So what I said before was factually correct: we are becoming a nation of fat, dumb people - but we do feel good about ourselves... and that's what's most important. :rolleyes:

I live in a VERY conservative area. But if I had kids, I wouldn't send them to the public schools here either. I would probably move back to central or northern VA and send them to one of the private schools near Charlottesville or maybe Fairfax Co. The level of ignorance here is just as bad as in the liberal areas, just a different kind of ignorance. It's more based on xenophobia and a resistance to learning about new things... leaving ones comfort zone, if you will. I would want my kid to grow up and not be afraid to tackle ANY situation or challenge. I wouldn't want my kid to be sheltered from ideas that might go against his grain (assuming I'd done my job as a parent). As my grandfather often said, "the same heat that melts butter, tempers steel - you just have to figure out which one you are before life figures it out for you." IMO, we're becoming a nation of Butter People on the left and the right... weak, scared, paranoid and reactionary. The gripe that I have these days is that people (on the left and the right) want themselves and their kids to be sheltered from ideas and concepts that they may not agree with. People use and react to words like Pavlov's dogs. But in school, kids should (primarily) be there to learn the basics, not learn how to make their inner children feel good & happy.

Reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Teachers should be there to teach these basics first and foremost. If a kid comes to school with behavioral problems, unless it's a true medical condition, that's the parents' fault! I dated a teacher (well, a special ed counselor) a few years ago and she was basically there to be a social worker. A lot of those kids were f'ed up simply because their parents were f'ed up. Too many people are having children that aren't ready to be parents. I'm very self-centered. I admit it. I've never hidden it from anyone. But for that, and other reasons, I have not had children or gotten married (engaged but not married). And I'm not half as f'ed up as some of the people I know who have had kids.

But yes, Idiocracy it is. We're getting there.

anthonyvop

1st June 2010, 05:28

Even in heavily conservative areas Public Schools are generally run with Liberal policies. Between the Unions and the Dept. Of Education it is a lost cause.

Eki

1st June 2010, 08:07

Of course you like it when you live in a country where anyone who disagrees with you is forbidden by law from expressing it publicly.
Yes, it really feels good. I'm always right and everybody nods in accordance.

anthonyvop

1st June 2010, 08:12

Yes, it really feels good. I'm always right and everybody nods in accordance.

Good for you.

F1boat

1st June 2010, 14:01

I like our system. Nine parties in our parliament and four in our government, and none of them gets over 25 percent of the votes. In an environment like that, it takes compromises to get anything done. As I have said, I like balance.

I have studied about various countries and their system and my impression is that Finland has really a very, very good system, likely the best in the world. I have to say however, that this is a result of many factors like the size of the country, the population, the culture of the country, its history etc, etc. Still, I respect your system tremendously.

Eki

1st June 2010, 14:56

I have to say however, that this is a result of many factors like the size of the country, the population, the culture of the country, its history etc, etc.
Yes, it might not happen for example in the US. To me it seems that Americans aren't very willing to compromise, they want to see "blood" and the other party win and the other party lose, not some wishy-washy compromise.

Bob Riebe

1st June 2010, 19:43

Yes, it might not happen for example in the US. To me it seems that Americans aren't very willing to compromise, they want to see "blood" and the other party win and the other party lose, not some wishy-washy compromise.
Hmmm-- compromise-- you think the "palestinians" should get land (and be called a country) that they never owned, espcially as they care nothing about the majority of "their" land taken by Jordan; therefore you must be on the side of the South Ossetians who broke away because they wanted to be part of Russia.

S. Ossetia is only a small piece of land that neither threatens nor benefits Georgia.

Eki

1st June 2010, 20:02

Hmmm-- compromise-- you think the "palestinians" should get land (and be called a country) that they never owned, espcially as they care nothing about the majority of "their" land taken by Jordan; therefore you must be on the side of the South Ossetians who broke away because they wanted to be part of Russia.

S. Ossetia is only a small piece of land that neither threatens nor benefits Georgia.
South Ossetia wanted to be independent, not part of Russia or Georgia and it has as much right to be independent as Russia or Georgia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Declaration_of_independence

The Republic of South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia in 1990. The Georgian government responded by abolishing South Ossetia's autonomy and trying to retake the region by force.[4] This led to the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War.[5] Georgian fighting against those controlling South Ossetia occurred on two other occasions, in 2004 and 2008.[6] The last conflict led to the 2008 South Ossetia war, during which Ossetian separatists and Russian troops gained full, de-facto, control of the territory of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast.
In the wake of the 2008 South Ossetia War, Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Nauru recognized South Ossetia as an independent republic.[7][8][9][10] Georgia does not recognize South Ossetia's existence as a political entity, and considers most of its territory a part of the Shida Kartli region within Georgian sovereign territory.[11]

Bob Riebe

1st June 2010, 21:08

South Ossetia wanted to be independent, not part of Russia or Georgia and it has as much right to be independent as Russia or Georgia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Declaration_of_independence
You really should stop being a mouth-piece for the wiki half-assed articles.

INTERVIEW-Rebel S.Ossetia wants unity with Russia, more troops

* Rebel leader says wants more Russian troops, weapons
* Says wants to unite his people with Russia
* Says wants stability, not another war

TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A year after Russia and Georgia fought a war over South Ossetia, the leader of the rebel enclave said he wanted to unite his people with Russia and called on the Kremlin to deploy more troops and weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1268080

Eki

1st June 2010, 21:53

You really should stop being a mouth-piece for the wiki half-assed articles.

INTERVIEW-Rebel S.Ossetia wants unity with Russia, more troops

* Rebel leader says wants more Russian troops, weapons
* Says wants to unite his people with Russia
* Says wants stability, not another war

TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A year after Russia and Georgia fought a war over South Ossetia, the leader of the rebel enclave said he wanted to unite his people with Russia and called on the Kremlin to deploy more troops and weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1268080

So, you're talking about some rebels in South Ossetia, not South Ossetia itself? As far as remember those rebels were Russians living in South Ossetia. I can see why they want to live in Russia instead of Georgia.

Eki

1st June 2010, 21:56

Bob Riebe

1st June 2010, 23:04

So, you're talking about some rebels in South Ossetia, not South Ossetia itself? As far as remember those rebels were Russians living in South Ossetia. I can see why they want to live in Russia instead of Georgia.

You are wrong- again- and again- and again- and .....

"Ninety eight percent of South Ossetia's population hold Russian passports, Russian is the lingua franca and the Russian rouble their currency."

S. Osettia is the enclave spoken of in the article.

Main Entry: en·clave
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from enclaver to enclose, from Vulgar Latin *inclavare to lock up

: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory

Read the article before you flatulate with your keyboard, or bow before your wiki-god.

Mark

2nd June 2010, 10:19

It causes a problem all over the world where a significant amount of people living in one country identify more with the country next door. Just like Kosovo, Northern Ireland etc.

Rollo

2nd June 2010, 13:43

Section 12 of the Potsdam Agreement:The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10211314.stm
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has announced his resignation after just eight months in office.
It comes after he broke an election pledge to move an unpopular US military base away from the island of Okinawa.

I take it that this wasn't "peacefully inclined and responsible government"?

Eki

2nd June 2010, 13:46

You are wrong- again- and again- and again- and .....

"Ninety eight percent of South Ossetia's population hold Russian passports, Russian is the lingua franca and the Russian rouble their currency."

S. Osettia is the enclave spoken of in the article.

Main Entry: en·clave
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from enclaver to enclose, from Vulgar Latin *inclavare to lock up

: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory

Read the article before you flatulate with your keyboard, or bow before your wiki-god.
Russian passport does not necessarily mean an ethnic Russian. South Osseatia is only recognized as an independent country by Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Nauru, so they obviously need some other passport and currency than South Ossetian, if they want to go abroad or trade. Language means little. For example, most Americans speak English although they aren't English, so do most Irish.

Eki

2nd June 2010, 13:48

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10211314.stm
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has announced his resignation after just eight months in office.
It comes after he broke an election pledge to move an unpopular US military base away from the island of Okinawa.

I take it that this wasn't "peacefully inclined and responsible government"?
At least they didn't listen to the "freely expressed will of the Japanese people".

F1boat

2nd June 2010, 18:45

Yes, it might not happen for example in the US. To me it seems that Americans aren't very willing to compromise, they want to see "blood" and the other party win and the other party lose, not some wishy-washy compromise.

I am not sure about that, Eki. For me part of Americans, the red voters, or more likely part of the Republican voters might be as you describe them, as evident from the forum. But in the end, the people elected Obama, who is seen to be more willing to compromise and seeking peaceful solutions. In the past elections, the Republicans had more voters only once, at the second win of W., we all know that the first one was a bit fishy, like the 1998 British GP, lol :)
But there are powers, firms, rich and influential people, for which wars are good. And they use their massive influence to convince other people that they are right, that's at least what I think. I am sure that most people in the USA want to enjoy life and be happy, except maybe some ultra religious cuckoos ;)

Bob Riebe

2nd June 2010, 21:00

Russian passport does not necessarily mean an ethnic Russian. South Osseatia is only recognized as an independent country by Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Nauru, so they obviously need some other passport and currency than South Ossetian, if they want to go abroad or trade. Language means little. For example, most Americans speak English although they aren't English, so do most Irish.
Read the article it says you are wrong, but then you rarely are not, read the article.

Eki

2nd June 2010, 21:21

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1268080

"My goal in life, my political goal, is to unite my people," the self-styled president, Eduard Kokoity, told Reuters in an interview in the enclave's capital Tskhinvali.

"We will build our own state, which will be in alliance with Russia, together with Russia and I am not excluding that one day, we will be part of Russia," he said.

Ethnically distinct from Georgians, South Ossetians speak their own, Farsi-related language and say they have been separated from their fellow people in the neighbouring region of North Ossetia in Russia.

Finland was an own state in alliance with the European Union until 1995, when it became part of the European Union. Finland is still Finland and Finns are still Finns, that didn't change.

AAReagles

3rd June 2010, 17:57

I would say the probably he greatest cancer is all the political or government employees who are NOT elected and damn near never get fired but collect wages and benefits that put to shame what the grunts on Wall St. get.

They remain there... influencing political decisions but not responsible to the electorate that pays their wages..

Actually I would have to include the elected ones in particular, since their decisions on public matters are influenced by corporations/special interests groups. Which is why I'm an advocate for public-funded campaigns.

... The sheer amount of intellectual laziness is going to be our undoing. Far too many people have a greater desire to belong to a major club (which is all the Democrat and Republican parties are) than to think for themselves. And worse yet, now we have these political echo chambers (for the left and the right), so that people only have to hear things that they agree with. They are quite honestly AFRAID to hear or see anything which challenges their ingrained beliefs. I think back to the wingnuts who were afraid to send their kids to school when Obama addressed the schools last year. How pitiful is that? Afraid that the President was going to fill their kids with subliminal messages and corrupt them. People who are afraid of census workers, but don't mind that Equifax knows more about them than their own mother. That's the level of delusional paranoia that boggles the mind. I was checking out various political boards last summer and I was shocked at how many people could do nothing more than repeat the various talking points that they'd heard from the talking heads on TV and radio.

Considering our current financial state, let's just see how much longer we can sustain this level of (needless) military spending... Until those on the left realize that there have to be cuts to entitlements and those on the right realize that we are not the policemen of the world, we're pretty much stuck on this road to fiscal ruin, IMO..

:up: Exactly!

I am not sure about that, Eki. For me part of Americans, the red voters, or more likely part of the Republican voters might be as you describe them, as evident from the forum. But in the end, the people elected Obama, who is seen to be more willing to compromise and seeking peaceful solutions... But there are powers, firms, rich and influential people, for which wars are good. And they use their massive influence to convince other people that they are right, that's at least what I think. I am sure that most people in the USA want to enjoy life and be happy, except maybe some ultra religious cuckoos...

Blue voters (Democrats) have no claim for being egalitarian anymore than Red voters (Repubs.) believe they’re the designated spokespersons for God. Take it from Obama on down to the local avenues – it doesn’t matter.

SOD

7th June 2010, 14:49

Jag_Warrior

22nd June 2010, 03:33

Hopefully some of the members here (who want to better understand the topic, rather than just make hackneyed partisan points) will take the time to read the book I mentioned a few pages back: Thomas Madden's Empires of Trust.

Rethinking what I said before, the U.S. would be seen as an empire (of sorts). But it's an empire as Madden describes it: an empire of "trust". He refers to Rome as this same sort of empire. He's much more well versed on the subject than I am, but I have noticed that to make his point that Rome was an empire of trust, and not of conquest, he glosses over some of the sticky details (like the full extent of what happened to Carthage and Gaul at the hands of the Romans).

But he details three types of empires:
empires of trust (Rome and the U.S.)
empires of commerce (Venice and the British Empire)
empires of conquest (Alexander's Greek empire)

With an empire of trust, the defeated are usually rebuilt rather than oppressed (the Marshall Plan). And most of the time, a certain moral code will be applied to the defeated... the same moral code that would be extended to an ally. As Madden points out, this is why Abu Ghraib and some of the goings on at Gitmo didn't sit right with many Americans. We want to be able to maintain, at least the facade, that we possess a degree of moral superiority over our enemies. And like the Roman's desire to turn barbarians into proper Latins (or kill them trying), we want to spread democracy and freedom around the world... whether you want it or not. But anyway, it's Madden's contention that we can basically be trusted to act in a certain way, whether you're friend or foe. And so, those who are smart enough to see that, well, they spend their money on infrastructure, education or what have you, while the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines maintain their security. I haven't completed the book yet, but I've noticed that Madden hasn't mentioned that the Romans didn't exactly "work for free". Julius Caesar found great wealth as he conquered Gaul, for example. If we had gotten even 10 barrels of free oil out of Iraq, I might have less of a problem with it. But the last time I looked, the bill for the American taxpayer for our "freedom mission" into Iraq stood at around $1 trillion (yeah, with a "T"), and the Iraqi treasury had something close to $100 billion stashed away in reserves. IMO, that's three shades of stupid.

Even with what he seems to be leaving out or glossing over, it's a seriously interesting book. His definitions of empire certainly made me rethink my position on the question of "empire", as it applies to the U.S. Hopefully a few of you will take the time to buy it or pick it up at the library.

race aficionado

22nd June 2010, 03:58

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%

Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two, this path that we're currently on will not lead to a good place .

Yes, I know . . . I'm late on this one . . .
but 41.5% . . . . . 41.5% is being spent for the military in a country like mine where the economic situation is dire, the education is mediocre, health care is sick and our infrastructure is in need of a facelift.

Yes, the military in this day and age need a % . . . . but 41.5%?

Our grandchildren will look back at this and say . . . WTF?????

As a matter of fact, we should be the ones saying that.

It's nuts.

*now I will duck because I can see the salvos coming this way.
peace dammit!!!!!!!!!
:s mokin:

Jag_Warrior

22nd June 2010, 04:26

Just to be clear, race aficionado, we spend about 4.7% (FY2010) of our GDP on the military. The 41.5% is our percentage of the global total.

For the sake of comparison, Russia spends about 3.5% of GDP on its military. China spends about 2%. Taiwan (right next door to the Chicomms) spends about 2.1%. The UK spends right at 2.5%. France, 2.3%. Germany and Canada, both at 1.3%. Mexico, 0.5%. Those are 2008 figures.

But to your point, yes, roughly half of the military spending in the world is being done out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. If you really want to feel good about the future, I'll put up some info detailing how no developed nation has ever survived for very long once its infrastructure began to crumble. Guess what's been happening in the U.S. for the past 20+ years? ;)