Discussions
Leaving nations alone
Posted by crazyTsu • 8 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: foreign policy, us, world
So American troops might pull out from near Okinowa
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/world/asia/14prexy.html
Do you think this is a step in the right direction? US has 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world. Are they really required everywhere?
American philosophy back home is every individual helps himself. So why do they want to go help other countries? Are military bases relevant post-cold-war and post spy satellites and peace negotiations? Why the insecurity and why not let them all go?
User Comments
-
Wow.. it's silent in here
-
Well I disagree..they are keeping an eye on things -
A 60 year old watch on things. And what were they gawking at when 9/11 happened?
Could they watch over anyone? Pakistan's Nuke tests and technology leak? China's interferences? Iran, N Korea?-
I agree...they should have a base in pakistan,palestine,where ever there isn't one and keep an eye on them to.
-
When they should have been watching their own backyard in NY and were unable to, what purpose does it serve to try to watch Pakistan
-
We should be watching everyone, and every base can be strategic. Past failures of seeing an attack do not justify closing a base. -
DailyBeerReview, If the US is allowed to put US bases all over the world to police each individual country, then who exactly does that leave to police us? If the US is allowed to do this, shouldn't other countries be allowed as well? Why should the US be allowed to place bases all over the world, but not, say... North Korea? -
@ Morgan, very good question! -
-
U do know this is funny...n.korea allow us a base,hahaha...now morgan have we ever said death to AMERICA?? I don't think so,BUTTTT n.korea, iran,palestine...they have well I'm still out on palestine,but they say isreal is little satan,and usa big satan
-
Holly, many countries see the US as a threat, so why shouldn't they be allowed to have their bases in the US but we should be allowed to have our bases in their country?
-
-
What is the question exactly?
Why is the US "keeping an eye on things"?
or
Are other countries mature enough to keep an eye on themselves?
^_^-
Exactly. Why this judgmental attitude toward other people (that they are not mature enough to watch themselves etc)
Don't people grow up elsewhere? -
The US job is to protect itself. Really? You don't get that? We're supposed to expect mature countries to police themselves, and take their word for it? That's stupid!
-
Protect itself?
And others job? To kill themselves?
In which world are you in? This earth is a human habitat, not the American and human habitat -
The US looks out for itself, first, period. Same with other countries, some of which are not very friendly to us. So yes, protect ourselves from those countries.
Yes, I'd love world peace, but since that is not the case, I'd like to have eyes on the back and sides of my head. -
If such a powerful nation feels so insecure and is "watching" 130 countries around the world, look at it from the point of view of say, Singapore, which is infinitely more vulnerable, being small
Come on, what is the logic in watching over friends and allies? What is the logic in watching over Japan?
There is no more soviet. Only some petty thugs with AK-47's
These policies are 60 years old. Things change, so shouldn't policies change with them?
-
-
As long as you have men in power and their egos being stroked by the power they have,then their are gonna be people out to get somebody...its KARAZYYY,but that's the way the world is.
I would like to know when I'm fixina be blown off the map... -
Tweety bird ya lookin 4 a fight,which is fine but I'm so over arguing with people I don't know and don't value anything I say anyways...like I said your lucky just to have me commenting on ur thread,I'm sooooo not buying into ur little 5th grade games...gets kinda old.
You can disagree with this HEARTLESS, girl all ya want...we can agree to disagree -
I am ok with not getting comments. I dont need you to show your false sympathy. Perhaps if no one commented it means they agree with me and dont know what to add
If you have good points to make do make them. Why comment just for the sake of it-
I think we should spy on EVERYONE. That's self preservation. And bases worldwide provide that ability, or at least help it. Hope that wasn't below the "sympathy" comment bar.
-
-
Oh my lord...I wasn't commenting out of sympathy,I don't like u duhh... I commented bc I like the thread
-
I think we all know this is not a question of anything else than geopolitical power. Fear is here to justifie it.
-
U are just trying to start sumthn as usual....save the drama 4 ya mama
-
What does the huge country of US have to fear from small third world nations, whom they could blow away in a jiffy?
-
we have to worry about pussies in our government who will never act on terrorism, considering the threats as criminal acts or some BS like that.
small third world nations can get some cash and buy a nuke from some other dumb ass country and there are dozens.
spying is the way to go. -
To remind, this "spying" business has been going on ever since the end of WW2, cold war, several other wars, and now it continues even as there is economic meltdown and nations face new kind of crises
On the other hand, just SUPPOSE N Korea becomes Nuke enabled, and they attain capability to hit US. How viable is it REALLY to do it? What is there to fear from?
You could more easily go on conventional warfare than nuclear. But any offensive will bring with it full justification for a backlash and everyone knows it -
N. Korea is Nuke enabled. Can't hit the US as far as I know, but can hit our allies. Have you see this crazy MoFo that runs that country? He might not launch today, but tomorrow is another story. Does he care about retaliation? I'm not sure, the psycho. He's an old dude that starves his own people. He is clearly not caring in that respect.
Of course we will nuke them back, but by then it's too late. We need to be offensive as best as possible. NOT reactive. -
Not to mention if homeboy hooks up with iran...both have said death to AMERICA....what is to stop them? The only thing I see stopping them is the whole "top dog syndrome" no man can be behind another,but if they are smart(crazy) enough to stand side by side...well kiss ur ass good bye
-
@Does he care about retaliation? I'm not sure, the psycho. He's an old dude that starves his own people. He is clearly not caring in that respect
- Only animals dont care about retaliation. And to remind, this is humans we are talking about, even if psycho.
- And who told you he is psycho? The media? They can make you believe anything. Haven't you seen celebrities getting mad at the same media? If they cant be fair in trivial reporting how can they be fair in world affairs. Old dude starving own people, at best a gross exaggeration
- The question is, you being sooo much stronger, dont have it in you to trust, then how do you expect someone in a far weaker position to trust you?
-
-
"There should be a global army whose soldiers are real professionals from the countries around the world." Bertrand Russel-
like the UN soldiers? what a f joke! we need buzz lightyear and rambo.
-
Yes, but you know UN nation soldiers are not permanent. They are hurriedly collected soldiers after the incident.
-
More like a world affairs governing body with full representation from all... perhaps, that would be wise
-
Yes, international police telling us what to do, great idea. and of course everyone will listen and follow the rules. while they all talk, the countries like iran and n. korea will nod their heads and then turn around and build nukes then laugh at that body when they are launching their missiles.
I'm all for diplomacy, but some are not interested even if they pretend. -
There shouldn't be a global anything except for peace...you put man into the equation everybody is about his own...period end of story
-
Do Iran and N Korea have representation in UN? Then how can you expect them to be governed? They feel the same as you, as if someone tells them what to do. At least, the UN is a puppet of US and you shouldn't feel so bad about your boys there
@Holly representation is key. Humans will cooperate when there is trust and a sense of being understood -
iran does,not sure bout n korea...the un is a JOKE anyways...
-
-
Ya had me till ya brought in BUZZ and RAMBO...haha
-
crazy, holly, a few others. it's been lovely. let's do it again sometime. I gotta leave.
Seriously, I like the inspired debate and differing viewpoints without the assholeness.
Good Night.-
Without the asshole-ness?
Ok, will try
-
-
NOOO don't leave me!!!! I always get stuck fightin it out on my own...dang it
-
Like it or not the U.S. is the big boy on the block. so...
if help is needed - who do we hope will respond? the big boy on the block.
if things go wrong - who do we blame? same as above.
if things go right - who do we credit? ourselves. same as above. couldn't have done s..t without us.
if someone fails, is humbled - who do we hope it is? same as above.
(as long as it doesn't affect us.)
oh, well (ah, wail)
final note - for all the disdain the U.S. generates globally, which nation would be mostly likely overwhelmed with immagrants border restricts world-wide were eliminated?
enuff-
This is interesting, but I think the question was not who wants to immagrate to the US, but why the US is having bases all other the world.
-
Well said and so true! -
But none of it would justify having soldiers posted in regions without the consent of the countries there, unless they are unfriendly and really do need to be controlled
@immigrants
If all nations would give opportunity then it is not just US that will take all. In the liberalized scenario so many more possibilities would open up and people would spread out much more than you think, in my opinion -
Immigrants? I agree that eventually there would be an effect world wide as all options open. I am just saying it is more than likely the beginning number 1 of choice would be to come to the U.S. From Africa. Asia. Mideast, South America...so forth. Then it would start to smooth out. New opportunities would be seen many places - even in those areas that had lost populations due to immagration.
Why place military bases in other counties? It is what Powers do. Romans, Persians, Vikings, Mongols, France, Spain, Briton, Russia, Japan, and today U.S.
Again, I would wager many nationalities occupied at least prefer it be the U.S. rather than those that came before. Poland for example: Under Nazi Germany? Under Soviet Union? Or now member of NATO connected to U.S.? Several Baltic countries would probably choose the latter. I'd assume several African populations would like to see the U.S. intrude as actively in their national states. Anyway...
Power is power. All power can be abused. And is. It is just that some wielders of power are more benign than others. -
But is running an EMPIRE constituational? -
@It is what Powers do
Doing it because the Romans did it?
It is an archaic model, not in tune with the advent of supersonic speed modern aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles, spy satellites etc
-
-
What!?! Obama is waving the white flag of surrender in Okinawa?!
What's next?! is he pulling out of Germany!?!-
No it's more like mean nasty bully was stepping on a puppy's tail, and his momma came and took him away
-
ahem, sarcasm...
-
-
Before I joined the military I was vehemently opposed to America's worldwide military presence. Now that I've enlisted...
Whilst America does more than a few things that are questionable... if push came to shove, I would much rather live in a world controlled by the United States, than a world controlled by one of its enemies such as China.-
It's precisely because all feel this way, that there is no peace in the world
-
-
China...wilst thou be serious??? Have u heard of al quieta(however u spell it) hamas,N. Korea,Iran,Iraq
And what up with lingo.... wilst...cute tho-
Affirmative - I am serious.
Al Qaeda and Hamas aren't nations so I am not certain why you grouped them in with the countries you mentioned.
Iraq is not a threat to the United States and never has been.
China is a global superpower with enough economic, political and military clout to affect worldwide events against the United States which is why I mentioned that particular country.
As for the lingo? It's plain English - the original version from England - not the bastardised version used widely in North America. -
so now that our occupation has resulted in our being deeply indebted to china, are we very far from such a world?
-
K... so al qaeda,and hamas aren't nations,which makes them all the more dangerous...you can't deny that nations support them,therefore those nations should be looked at closely,or the nations that don't neccessarily suport them,but wouldn't mind working with them to foreward their own interest should be looked at closely to.
Now china,yea its a super power,BUT I have found that the chinese are a humble peaceful people,and I don't think you will find a lot who would beg to differ.
WHATEVERRRR on the lingo...language evolves obviously -
Language wouldn't evolve to a worse state if certain nations didn't have a ridiculous desire to distance themselves from the country that gave birth to them and their language.
People are concentrating on my mention of China and missing the point. I was trying to say that a lot of people bitch and whine about what America does but they're the same people who'd whine if a different superpower was flexing its muscles across the globe. -
that just suggests that they aren't hypocrites
-
So if america didn't flex it's muscles...I don't see china doing it. If we didn't somebody would...who would u propose?
-
That's the point I'm trying to make - nobody else would. Nobody has the worldwide clout or desire to do it, and is exactly why I think people should shut their traps and stop complaining about the Yanks do with their military.
-
Well I sure as hell ain't....I'm glad they're doing what they're doin...and you aussies keep sayin"yanks" well let's get one thing straight...a "yank" HOLLY is not.I'm from MS boy...
-
First of all... I'm British.
Secondly... Yank is a colloquial term much the same as you use the word limey, so please get off your high horse and don't call me boy. I wasn't being rude to you so please respond in kind, thank you. -
Oh my lord...well what the hell are ya then? You don't look like a girl in ur avatar.
Bloke,I assoiate with australia,forgive me PALease...
I have never in my life said LIMEY ever ever ever.
I wasn't being rude,and you're welcome son...is that better?
-
-
"The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad." -- James Madison
-
what does that guy know? he just wrote the constitution is all
-
-
Yea...what does he know...
-
I wonder if this attempt by the U.S. to please China has anything to do with recent reports that China is considering scrapping the U.S. dollar for oil trading?
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.h... -
It's just a ploy so our GIs can impregnate all your women around the world and spread the American seed.-
Are you talking about your Mama?
-
And then the seed can grow and become your president
-
Lol@angelshair you must be the product of such a situation for you to attempt that an insult.
-
Absolutly! Like your president :-)!
-
-
It's easier to spot an attack if you are everywhere than just waiting for it to come to you. Also the cities that we do have said bases at benefit due to contracts that require the military to hire locals and our troops help their economies ever so slightly. It's a tit for tat there. Pulling out is fine and dandy but some places depend on the base for their major source of income.
Also threats are everywhere. The idea that no one wants to mess with us when we are among the most hated countries in the world is foolish. One must always know their enemies or potential enemies so as not to be blindsided... and weren't most attacks against us blindsides? Those who forget history, repeat history. I look at it like insurance, sure you may never use your homeowners insurance but the minute you cancel it, isn't that when there is a freak hail storm or electrical fire occurs? We as people find insurance for everything comforting, we even insure our jewelry and pets, why wouldn't we insure the protection of our own nation?-
@It's easier to spot an attack if you are everywhere than just waiting for it to come to you.
Thats what spy satellites are there for. To remind, the Romans did not have it. Even on-ground spies do that job.
Also the cities that we do have said bases at benefit due to contracts that require the military to hire locals and our troops help their economies ever so slightly. It's a tit for tat there.
In the absence of the nation's consent, there is no tit for tat points to be claimed
@Pulling out is fine and dandy but some places depend on the base for their major source of income.
They'll manage. In fact they can grow from here on, since they know American tastes. Try leaving, wait a few, and see what happens. And troops are not exactly there to provide livelihood. And they are probably a big deal to many nationalists and patriots. Don't you have patriots in US?
@Also threats are everywhere. The idea that no one wants to mess with us when we are among the most hated countries in the world is foolish. One must always know their enemies or potential enemies so as not to be blindsided... and weren't most attacks against us blindsides? Those who forget history, repeat history.
Still, it is a purely selfish interest, and no one likes selfishness (of others at least). Being the most hated is kind of self-fulfilling - don't you see a connection here?
@I look at it like insurance, sure you may never use your homeowners insurance but the minute you cancel it, isn't that when there is a freak hail storm or electrical fire occurs? We as people find insurance for everything comforting, we even insure our jewelry and pets, why wouldn't we insure the protection of our own nation?
Unfortunately the rest of the world happens to be getting by fine without so much insurance. And justifying occupation of others' territory on a naive explanation about insurance is not an argument that people would buy, to understate things here
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
