alw 0 #26 October 22, 2008 QuoteIt's kind of like saying we can now make a container with only 3 sewers, but we will continue to use 35 just because we would not want anyone to lose their job. Forget the fact that it costs 11.6 times as much to do this, at least people will keep their jobs. But seriously . . . I do see this mentality a lot in Europe. The Socialist Democrat governments have used this mentality as a means of manipulating elections and it has worked fairly well for them. We can now see the governments in Germany, France and soon GB I think turn to a more conservative leadership. I can see in Germany at least a lesser focus on "jobs for votes" and a greater focus on productivity and trade. It is too early to see if they make any progress. I do think that the USA is going to move more to that model and fall into a European model. This will also have the effect noted in this thread. As the EU banded together in early 90's to form a traiding block the were able to artificailly support thier higher cost models against world markets. The downside was trade deficits. They allowed their militaries to atrophy. It isn't that they don't want to be more participative in global military event. It is that they can't. T. Roosevelt understood the importance of maintaining the ability to project power. Maybe the time has come to allow the USA to take its rightful place on the world stage as a participant rather than a leader. I don't claim to know the right answer. I only know what I prefer, and I prefer the USA as it is to any of the many countries that I have lived and worked in. --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #27 October 22, 2008 QuoteOK, counterpoint, you want a base on our land, pay rent. Quite - and back rent too!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #28 October 22, 2008 Quote And preventing conflict in the first place, is far cheaper than stopping it after it has started. Yes, that is a good point. But, THEY should be paying for this. Not us. Quote Furthermore, are you willing to abandon all our allies like that? Allies? European democracies have become a welfare basket because WE pay for their defense. Time for them to step up. Quote If you think America's reputation is mud now, what's it going to be like when we walk away from all our friends in the world and let them be attacked and destroyed? Well, what about the reputation of those folks we're protecting? It is really time for them to step up to the plate.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 October 22, 2008 Quote ...via diplomacy... I'm curious, bill. How do you define diplomacy?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #30 October 22, 2008 Quote And other tyrants would no longer be reassured that the US would protect them should the people they are crushing rise up against them. You sound like a guilty liberal, sometimes.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #31 October 22, 2008 Quote Europe and Korea: make them fuel stops as long as we don't make them mad. I like that!We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #32 October 22, 2008 Quote First time in 60 years and it had bugger all to do with the US. Uhm, correct if I'm wrong here. But, aren't you a retired doughnut eating cop who thinks pellet rifles count as real guns? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #33 October 22, 2008 Quote You aint protecting us... you're squating Ah, when's the last time you saw your 3 capital ships? We call it fleet week over here.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #34 October 22, 2008 Quote You think the US should provide a mercenary army? To the highest bidder? Absolutely not.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #35 October 22, 2008 Quote While we're at it let's pull all the government contracts from local contractors too. I believe this thread is discussing foreign countries.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #36 October 22, 2008 Quote Actually we did foot the bill (Big time) for the assistance during WW2 Yep, and yall actually paid us back. I don't believe any other of our "allies" has actually done that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #37 October 22, 2008 Quote It is that they can't. Exactly. We continue to support what I call "their welfare states". Real life doesn't work that way.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #38 October 22, 2008 Quote T. Roosevelt understood the importance of maintaining the ability to project power. There are times when the world needs a clear winner. The Neo-Cons (pew!) tried, but weren't fully committed to making that happen. There is going to come a time where OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world. And I expect it's going to happen sooner rather than later. It's going to be vitally important that OUR COUNTRY stands as one when that happens.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #39 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteOr how about having the country we are "protecting" pick up the cost associated with maintaining the base? Kind of a "hired gun" You think the US should provide a mercenary army? To the highest bidder? Not exactly, but for the countries the we have deemed "worthy" of our miltary defense, have them foot the bill. DAMN RIGHT!! It's about time the Cubans started paying for services rendered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteOK, counterpoint, you want a base on our land, pay rent. Quite - and back rent too!! We do - AND we end up doing any needed renovations or paying for renovations on bases when we leave. Point in fact - Smiley Barracks in Kaiserslautern, Germany - the government paid several million dollars in renovation fees when they turned the base over to the Germans.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #41 October 22, 2008 I think many of you are underestimating the continued value to the US of the US being able to efficiently project its military power globally. No, an ICBM fleet doesn't fully fit the bill. Nor does projection of economic or diplomatic influence do (all of) that, either. Now, to some degree, closure of foreign bases can be offset by aircraft carriers; but of course carriers are expensive little toys, too. They're also inadequate for maintaining strategic logistical support to troops, ships and aircraft deployed around the world. Also, noting merely that "the Cold War is over" is, in my view, dangerously short-sighted. The issue of overseas bases is a strategic consideration, not a tactical one. Any defense analysis that fails to build-in sufficient flexibility to accomodate contingencies several decades into the future, when the world may be drastically different than it is today, is irresponsible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #42 October 22, 2008 Quote Any defense analysis that fails to build-in sufficient flexibility to accomodate contingencies several decades into the future, when the world may be drastically different than it is today, is irresponsible. Thoughtful reply. We cannot, and should not, be the only country that pays for this. Other countries MUST step up and protect themselves, and pay to do so. Otherwise, it's time to start extracting serious vig from these folks. We've been giving it away for way too long now.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mircan 0 #43 October 22, 2008 QuoteWe do - AND we end up doing any needed renovations or paying for renovations on bases when we leave. Point in fact - Smiley Barracks in Kaiserslautern, Germany - the government paid several million dollars in renovation fees when they turned the base over to the Germans. Not 100% true. I know a former US base in Bosnia (although small one) that was left for the "vultures" to tear it apart. It looks like a big pile of garbage now. Sand bags, concrete walls, guard houses, wires... Maybe you paid for cleanup, and then someone just took the money and did nothing. But maybe it is because it is in Bosnia. They are second class country anyway. They won`t sue the US. OTOH I have to admit the fact that foreign soldiers bring SOME cash into the country (but not so much, I figured that US army ships their supplies from US anyway).dudeist skydiver #42 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #44 October 22, 2008 Pat Buchanan keeps asking the question why we still have troops in Korea? South Korea has an economy 40 times the size of North Korea, and double the population. Why couldn't they fend for themselves? This Team America World Police is the ultimate Big Government program. And it makes us LESS safe, not more safe. Becoming a rogue imperialist nation makes you more of a target. The US military should stick to defending the USA. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #45 October 22, 2008 Quote Becoming a rogue imperialist nation makes you more of a target. The US military should stick to defending the USA. Agreed. While I understand the concerns concerning the effective execution of the global economy, and it's impact on us, if it's really that important, let others join in supporting it in material ways.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #46 October 22, 2008 QuotePat Buchanan keeps asking the question why we still have troops in Korea? Because it's not about Korea. Please see post #41. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #47 October 22, 2008 QuoteAnd preventing conflict in the first place, is far cheaper than stopping it after it has started. We start conflicts at least as often as we prevent them. Running around the world getting in everyone else's business INSPIRES conflict. When we fought Al Quaida in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, the lines were CLEARLY drawn for all the world to see. When we diverted into Iraq, the lines were muddied. Also, Big Government from the Left also gives the same response: "If we don't have (inserted bloated governmetn program here), everything will go to hell! People will be dying in the streets!!" So we get the Big Government types from both sides, each arguing that THEIR particular brand of bloatocracy is an absolute moral imperative, when more often than not, the results of these programs (be they Welfare or Warfare State) cause the opposite effect of their intent. And the people who preach the loudest for American imperialism/adventurism are the first to complain if any other country tries the same thing! Remember when the UAE tried to get a port in America, and everyone was shitting wolverines about it?? So how do you think that foreign countries feel when they have fucking US military bases in their countries?? Would you want a Saudi military base anywhere near the USA? If we run around trying to pick fights all over the world, it will inspire conflict, not prevent it. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #48 October 22, 2008 ICBMs,,,don't fit the bill..? why not...any disruption can be dealt with remotely, no ? going door to door seems odd....smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #49 October 22, 2008 Quoteany disruption can be dealt with remotely, no ? Uh... no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #50 October 22, 2008 Here you go nerdgirl. Data www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
