It's a real treat talking to people that have bought into this bullshit... Apparently providing peace and stability around the world involves (now) drone bombing harmless civilians... and... keeping ourselves planted in a territory for eternity...
I don't even like talking to my mom about it... gets old. No wonder I get along with my dad better :roll: After 22 years in the Air Force and going through Desert Storm, he realizes how ridiculous and deadly the war machine is.
And yet, how many of our citizens who think we are warmongers, that we need to bring the troops home, that we need to close all our overseas military bases, etc. Are willing to not be the lone superpower, or even a superpower, anymore? We've stayed on top for so long because we built a machine of fear and false strength. How many are willing to follow those other countries that use to be the number 1 country (remember England and France were superpowers before us?) into lowly number 2 or 3 or even 4th place status? I am, but I don't really think most Americans are willing to give that up.
What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?
(crickets)
Well, my brother was stationed in South Korea for a year and he said the older citizens of that country wanted US military presence (they remembered the incursion of the North Koreans into the south), however, the younger generation was vehement about the removal of American military troops NOW. As far as governments, I would assume you are correct in that none of them want that (no doubt, it enables those countries to retain power and prestige both at home and abroad to be in an "alliance" with America). However, I'm not really asking what those governments nor their citizens want. I am asking how many Americans are willing to give up that power and prestige by closing bases and reducing our standing army? My guess is few or none.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?
(crickets)
no governments that i can think of, but i do know that certain elements of the population of iraq, saudi arabia, pakistan, and australia want our bases off of their land.
do you remember one of the main reasons why 9/11 happened? because we would not get our bases out of saudi arabia.
That's just the way they make reason and justify their actions. That's what they do, look for any reason so they can proceed with the murderous actions on a clean conscious. Never mind the fact that the reason the base is there was to prevent Iraq from invading their country.
They do the same thing when they murder other factions of Muslims. They find a way to justify that they are not really Muslims so when they strap a suicide vest on blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace full of women and children, they believe they have martyred themselves by killing the infidels and will find themselves in Paradise.
your point in the other thread was that there could be multiple interpretations - we didn't see it that way and i can confirm that i've received correspondence to confirm our interpretation ... you chose to give inlet the benefit of the doubt in that thread but here - you are making conclusions that are both false and presumptive ... i get it tho - you represent a different ideological viewpoint so you're gonna play the party line ...
Changing your tune once again, I see. First, I supposedly couldn't fathom your interpretation. Now you see you were wrong there, so you're saying that my point was there could be multiple interpretations, which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for catching up. It's hilarious that you concede that, yet still feel the need to say "I've received correspondence to confirm..." as if that somehow counters my point that there could be multiple interpretations. The fact that cate clarified her purpose has nothing to do with whether the topic as provided could be interpreted different ways. I spoke with cate via PM as well, for whatever that's worth, and we had a very pleasant conversation wherein I actually readily agreed that her actual intent was indeed the most likely interpretation. I never got that far with you because you were too busy being snarky and patronizing (and obtuse c'mon it's a good word, whether you agree with its applicability or not).
Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.
Anyhow, sorry for the derail, OP, but I'm not the one who brought it up.
On topic, the US spends too much money on its military. Agreed. Whether the sole purpose for that military is imperialistic expansion or war for its own sake (i.e., the profit of the defense industry) is hardly substantiated by this particular article. The majority of the article is only about how big the military is and it even fucks that statistic up. The conclusions drawn are conjecture based on the fact of the size of the US military.
As for calling in chits, you're bloody right, cate, but fortunately for us that would wreck China just as much. Once the world realized we couldn't honor most of our debt, the majority of China's reserve currency would go up in smoke. Too big a risk for them (let's hope).
I am asking how many Americans are willing to give up that power and prestige by closing bases and reducing our standing army? My guess is few or none.
I think the majority of Americans want to preserve a strong military presence. I don't think the majority are aware of the extent of bases and the cost it takes to support them.
I think we have become a war-weary nation although. Only the hardcore extreme right are beating the drums to attack Iran.
Changing your tune once again, I see. First, I supposedly couldn't fathom your interpretation. Now you see you were wrong there, so you're saying that my point was there could be multiple interpretations, which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for catching up. It's hilarious that you concede that, yet still feel the need to say "I've received correspondence to confirm..." as if that somehow counters my point that there could be multiple interpretations. The fact that cate clarified her purpose has nothing to do with whether the topic as provided could be interpreted different ways. I spoke with cate via PM as well, for whatever that's worth, and we had a very pleasant conversation wherein I actually readily agreed that her actual intent was indeed the most likely interpretation. I never got that far with you because you were too busy being snarky and patronizing (and obtuse c'mon it's a good word, whether you agree with its applicability or not).
Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.
Anyhow, sorry for the derail, OP, but I'm not the one who brought it up.
On topic, the US spends too much money on its military. Agreed. Whether the sole purpose for that military is imperialistic expansion or war for its own sake (i.e., the profit of the defense industry) is hardly substantiated by this particular article. The majority of the article is only about how big the military is and it even fucks that statistic up. The conclusions drawn are conjecture based on the fact of the size of the US military.
As for calling in chits, you're bloody right, cate, but fortunately for us that would wreck China just as much. Once the world realized we couldn't honor most of our debt, the majority of China's reserve currency would go up in smoke. Too big a risk for them (let's hope).
good grief ... i suppose we could go on telling each other that we've missed the boat on this but it's clearly degenerated to the point where it's not worth responding to ...
your point in the other thread was that there could be multiple interpretations - we didn't see it that way and i can confirm that i've received correspondence to confirm our interpretation ... you chose to give inlet the benefit of the doubt in that thread but here - you are making conclusions that are both false and presumptive ... i get it tho - you represent a different ideological viewpoint so you're gonna play the party line ...
Changing your tune once again, I see. First, I supposedly couldn't fathom your interpretation. Now you see you were wrong there, so you're saying that my point was there could be multiple interpretations, which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for catching up. It's hilarious that you concede that, yet still feel the need to say "I've received correspondence to confirm..." as if that somehow counters my point that there could be multiple interpretations. The fact that cate clarified her purpose has nothing to do with whether the topic as provided could be interpreted different ways. I spoke with cate via PM as well, for whatever that's worth, and we had a very pleasant conversation wherein I actually readily agreed that her actual intent was indeed the most likely interpretation. I never got that far with you because you were too busy being snarky and patronizing (and obtuse c'mon it's a good word, whether you agree with its applicability or not).
Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.
guys, i PMed with several people in regards to the mary magdalene thread. please keep my name out of your pissing contest.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And yet, how many of our citizens who think we are warmongers, that we need to bring the troops home, that we need to close all our overseas military bases, etc. Are willing to not be the lone superpower, or even a superpower, anymore? We've stayed on top for so long because we built a machine of fear and false strength. How many are willing to follow those other countries that use to be the number 1 country (remember England and France were superpowers before us?) into lowly number 2 or 3 or even 4th place status? I am, but I don't really think most Americans are willing to give that up.
What countries are asking the US to remove their military presence?
Generally, the citizens that do want our bases in their countries do so because it brings in money for them. Why should we be subsidizing their citizens and sticking the bill to the taxpayers here?
Generally, the citizens that do want our bases in their countries do so because it brings in money for them. Why should we be subsidizing their citizens and sticking the bill to the taxpayers here?
After looking at the base on Google Maps, I can see why the public would want them to leave. The airstrip is smack in the middle of a heavy populated area.
There are also pollution concerns. It looks like they were going to move it to the other side of the island, but there are concerns that is will affect farming grounds and a corral reef. The US has cut the base population from 19,000 to 9,000 but it remains in limbo. They say the cost to relocate and build a new base will cost $8.6B ($3.1B to be subsidized by Japan).
I don't see the US ever leaving for good. Okinawa is a very strategic location in the East China Sea (which recently has become a hot issue between Japan and China).
Comments
it is what allows it to continue ... blind faith
Well, my brother was stationed in South Korea for a year and he said the older citizens of that country wanted US military presence (they remembered the incursion of the North Koreans into the south), however, the younger generation was vehement about the removal of American military troops NOW. As far as governments, I would assume you are correct in that none of them want that (no doubt, it enables those countries to retain power and prestige both at home and abroad to be in an "alliance" with America). However, I'm not really asking what those governments nor their citizens want. I am asking how many Americans are willing to give up that power and prestige by closing bases and reducing our standing army? My guess is few or none.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
They do the same thing when they murder other factions of Muslims. They find a way to justify that they are not really Muslims so when they strap a suicide vest on blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace full of women and children, they believe they have martyred themselves by killing the infidels and will find themselves in Paradise.
Sigh, Inlet's complaint in the other thread was about mod/admin consistency and the varied use of the word whore, which apparently he found offensive; a topic I made zero comment on. My PoV had nothing to do with inlet, so you can get off that.
Anyhow, sorry for the derail, OP, but I'm not the one who brought it up.
On topic, the US spends too much money on its military. Agreed. Whether the sole purpose for that military is imperialistic expansion or war for its own sake (i.e., the profit of the defense industry) is hardly substantiated by this particular article. The majority of the article is only about how big the military is and it even fucks that statistic up. The conclusions drawn are conjecture based on the fact of the size of the US military.
As for calling in chits, you're bloody right, cate, but fortunately for us that would wreck China just as much. Once the world realized we couldn't honor most of our debt, the majority of China's reserve currency would go up in smoke. Too big a risk for them (let's hope).
I think we have become a war-weary nation although. Only the hardcore extreme right are beating the drums to attack Iran.
good grief ... i suppose we could go on telling each other that we've missed the boat on this but it's clearly degenerated to the point where it's not worth responding to ...
guys, i PMed with several people in regards to the mary magdalene thread. please keep my name out of your pissing contest.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/world ... inawa.html
Generally, the citizens that do want our bases in their countries do so because it brings in money for them. Why should we be subsidizing their citizens and sticking the bill to the taxpayers here?
https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&q=Futenma+Marine+Corps+Air+Station&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Futenma+Marine+Corps+Air+Station&cid=0,0,17469542574544067365&ei=N5plUKP9OaHl0gGE3YCYDQ&ved=0CJEBEPwSMAU
There are also pollution concerns. It looks like they were going to move it to the other side of the island, but there are concerns that is will affect farming grounds and a corral reef. The US has cut the base population from 19,000 to 9,000 but it remains in limbo. They say the cost to relocate and build a new base will cost $8.6B ($3.1B to be subsidized by Japan).
I don't see the US ever leaving for good. Okinawa is a very strategic location in the East China Sea (which recently has become a hot issue between Japan and China).