War is peace

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 7556
PAGE 5 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Saturday, October 9, 2004 8:17 PM

SignyM and Soupcatcher

I admire your patience, honesty and open-mindedness in this discussion with Geezer. And I appreciate the information I'm learning from your contributions.

I don't think it'll work with Geezer, however. In many other threads and topics in the past, when presented/confronted with data that clearly refutes his position, he - goes away, never to come back to that thread. But then he resurfaces a week or so later on a new thread, saying the same things all over again.

There is no credible reason left to think a war of aggression against Iraq was a justified, or even legal. There were no 'tons' of WMD, zero production capability, no programs. No link to 9/11 or al Qaeda. No imminent threat. It was not in support of UN resolutions. Even as Iraq complied with the UN, Bush had to manufacture a final and illegal demand as a condition to avert war (Hussein had to leave or else). But Hussein is gone, and the US is still there.

People who STILL support the attack are basing it on emotions so intrinsic to their notions of who they are in the world that they CAN'T change their positions. Fear, hate, greed and American jihad. No facts can counter them.

NEUTRINOLAD

Saturday, October 9, 2004 9:03 PM

Well Rue, I'm not so sure this is all to change Geezer's mind. Seems to me this is more about sharing what we know to educate ourselves on the topic. If Geezer has a different point of view, well that's fine, we're all browncoats in here.
And who knows when that final piece of data clicks into place and makes Geezer start to question some of his own positions and start rethinking things generally.
Hope springs eternal.

RUE

Saturday, October 9, 2004 9:19 PM

OK.
It is a worthwhile thing to do.
I let my aggravation at Geezer's dogmatic rhetoric get the better of me.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Until the bribes got big enough.

Geezer, Ghoulman, et. al., as you are educated about this, you wouldn't happen to have the list of American companies and agencies that were also cited as bribe recipients but is being kept secret as a matter of "national security", would you?

Here's three from a Post article:

The names of U.S. companies and individuals who participated in the program were omitted from the report, because of what officials described as U.S. privacy law restrictions. But in June, three U.S. oil companies disclosed that they had received subpoenas in connection with a federal investigation into the program: Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and Valero Energy Corp.

Valero has said that it is cooperating fully, that the company had no direct contact with Iraq and that the subpoena does not imply any wrongdoing. Prem Nair, a spokeswoman for Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that the company did not violate any laws. "All purchases were documented as being in full compliance with all laws," Nair said. ChevronTexaco did not return a phone call.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Geezer- The book I was thinking of is "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson but it might actually be in "Sorrows of Empire" (same author). Anyway, here's a quote from "Sorrows" for your perusal while I go rummage for those books.

I found this in our county library catalog, but not in my local library, and as a Reference, so it can't be checked out.

Directory of U.S. military bases worldwide / edited by William R. Evinger

I'll drop by a library where it's available maybe tomorrow or next week.

Edit: Duh. Mr. Johnson's quote mentions the "Base Structure Report". A quick google turned this report up. It lists DoD's real property inventory. This is buildings and areas the military owns or leases, not just forts, arsenals, or armed compounds by any means.

Here's a link to the 2004 version.

www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20040910_2004BaseStructureReport.pdf

Here's the first seven Air Force "Bases" in Japan:

Camp Courtney Family Hsg Annex Gushikawa
Camp Kuwae Family Hsg Annex Jagaru
Camp McTureous Family Hsg Annex Gushikawa
Camp Shields Family Hsg Annex Okinawa City
Camp Zama Communications Station Zama
Camp Zukeran Family Hsg Annex Okinawa City
Chitose Administration Annex

As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:48 PM

I'll second what NeutrinoLad wrote. I use the Real World Events Discussion section of this site to help me refine my own views (and sometimes change those views completely). It's a safe environment for me because of the commonality we all share as fireflyfans and an educational environment because of the diversity of viewpoints. I tend to think of it in terms of manufacturing, something along the lines of casting a piece in bronze, and all the finishing work that is required after the bronze is poured before the piece is ready to be sold. There are many topics that have been discussed in these threads that I now have a solid opinion on - solid in that I feel confident discussing these topics and can outline the basic control volume, the assumptions that go into the framing, alternative ways of looking at the topic, reliable evidence to support my position, etc. So my goal in posting is not to convince anyone. It's to find out where my opinions are weak or where I've left something out of my analysis or sources of information that I am not aware of. At the end of the day I just want to sound coherent .

----------------------------------

Nature has infinite variety. Straight lines? Not so much

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:50 PM

I would just like to throw in an aricle which relates this this... well a little bit.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/09
/26/643823.html

I have heard of many an effort by locals to get the US bases out of Okinawa, and efforts by South Koreans to get some of those bases closed.

Funny how the only coceerns Germany had over being threatened with base closures were ones of local economic inpact. Pay us enough and we'll put up with you sort of thing I guess.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 10, 2004 2:18 PM

Quote:
As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea.

Just to demonstrate how you cherry-pick your information, when you listed the "top ten" Air Force Bases in Japan as family housing, you just "happened" to use the list that was sorted by function which listing FAMILY HOUSING AND ADMIN FIRST. I guess you didn't "happen" to notice that??? Even though you had to go past the first 170 pages or so to find it??

The top Japanese installations each over 1 million square feet of building space are (top down):

Kadena AFB 5,7 Msqft
USMC Camp, Zukaren OK 3,8
USMC Camp, Makimota OK 3,5
Sagami gnl depot 3,1
Zukeran fmly hsg 2,9
Kakiminato sv annex 2,3
Misawa AFB 1,1
USMC camp, Futemma OK 1,1
Navy base, Atsugi 1,0
Makiminato svc annex 1,0

In total, 96% of installations are devoted to air strips and hangars, USMC camps, docks, ammo dumps, etc. LESS THAN 5% are devoted to family housing, admin, recreation etc. So our military presence in Japan, and by extension to rest of the list, is not such a benign collection of famliy housing, is it?

Geezer, have you abandoned even a PRETENSE of objectivity?

The point of having installations (I DID say installations, not bases) all over the world is not to place them in hostile areas but to be able to project military power anywhere we want. If any other nation were to have HALF the installations that we do, we would be rightly and deeply concerned about their military ambitions!

Our BASES in "British Indian Ocean" sound pretty benign (It's part of the Commonwealth after all) until you realize that Diego Garcia is how we projected power into Iraq. From a military viewpoint, the US has its footprint over pretty much the whole world except China and Russia.

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe Ghoulman isn't right about you.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 10, 2004 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea.

Just to demonstrate how you cherry-pick your information, when you listed the "top ten" Air Force Bases in Japan as family housing, you just "happened" to use the list that was sorted by function which listing FAMILY HOUSING AND ADMIN FIRST. I guess you didn't "happen" to notice that??? Even though you had to go past the first 170 pages or so to find it??

The top Japanese installations each over 1 million square feet of building space are (top down):

Kadena AFB 5,7 Msqft
USMC Camp, Zukaren OK 3,8
USMC Camp, Makimota OK 3,5
Sagami gnl depot 3,1
Zukeran fmly hsg 2,9
Kakiminato sv annex 2,3
Misawa AFB 1,1
USMC camp, Futemma OK 1,1
Navy base, Atsugi 1,0
Makiminato svc annex 1,0

In total, 96% of installations are devoted to air strips and hangars, USMC camps, docks, ammo dumps, etc. LESS THAN 5% are devoted to family housing, admin, recreation etc. So our military presence in Japan, and by extension to rest of the list, is not such a benign collection of famliy housing, is it?

Geezer, have you abandoned even a PRETENSE of objectivity? The point of having installations (I DID say installations, not bases) all over the world is not to place them in hostile areas but to be able to project military power anywhere we want. If any other nation were to have HALF the installations that we do, we would be rightly and deeply concerned about their military ambitions!

Our BASES in "British Indian Ocean" sound pretty benign (It's part of the Commonwealth after all) until you realize that Diego Garcia is how we projected power into Iraq. From a military viewpoint, the US has its footprint over pretty much the whole world except China and Russia.

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe Ghoulman isn't right about you.

Installations in the report are listed in alphabetical order throughout, not by type or use. The ones I listed came from page 156. I guess that the grouping of Family Housing Annexes did seem kind of ironic to me. Perhaps that could be called "cherry-picking", sort of like the cherry-picked quotes (with commentary, yet) you used to open this thread. Just seemed sort of striking at the time.

I admit I shouldn't have gotten distracted by such asides. The real purpose of finding the report (Which you ignored in your response but quoted in it. (Hmm. Could that be considered "cherry-picking?)) was to identify where our "installations" are located. As I noted (and you quoted) "As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea."

Now, since we do agree that military installations are placed to project power, who do you think that these installations, most of which have been there for 30 years or more, were trying to project power against? Who's been the West's major boogieman from the '50s to the 90's? The Commies! Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked, or in the best places to launch retaliatory strikes. The US was the only other "super-power" besides the Soviet Union, and we naturally took on a major part of the defensive role. Is this such a surprise?

Even though the cold war is over, simple inertia and the fact that there are still threats in the world keep us from completely pulling back to our shores and pre-WWI and WWII isolationism. I'll have to check, but I do believe that US troop strength had been going down overseas prior to 9/11.

Oh, and:

"Geezer, have you abandoned even a PRETENSE of objectivity?"

When have I ever claimed 100% objectivity? Everyone, myself included, is subject to bias, interprets events differently, and has their own opinions. I question my beliefs frequently. Often the fact is I don't find them 100% valid, but just a little more than other points of view. I am always afraid of people who belie

RUE

Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:10 PM

Just thought I'd quickly point out two items:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa.htm

Quote:
The US military presence in Japan and on Okinawa began at the end of World War II. Although the US occupation in Japan ended in 1952, US administration continued on Okinawa until 1972. In 1951, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was officially recognized, Okinawa legally became a possession of the United States. In 1972, control of Okinawa was reverted to Japan.

http://www.carnelian-international.com/Philippines/Post_Independence.h
tm

Quote:
The Philippines became an integral part of emerging United States security arrangements in the western Pacific upon approval of the Military Bases Agreement in March 1947. The United States retained control of twenty-three military installations, including Clark Air Base and the extensive naval facilities at Subic Bay, for a lease period of ninety-nine years. United States rather than Philippine authorities retained full jurisdiction over the territories covered by the military installations, including over collecting taxes and trying offenders, including Filipinos, in cases involving United States service personnel.

Neither country had military bases ESTABLISHED due to the Cold War.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE