War is peace

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 7556
PAGE 6 of 8

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:37 PM

Quote:
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.
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 did not ignore that point, I addressed it as follows:

Quote:
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!

It is irrelevant to the rest of the world whether we call these bases "defensive" or not, since they are rightly seen as forward projections of power. Any President could use these bases for offensive as well as defensive purposes. The point is that we have them, and we are the ONLY nation to have such worldwide military presence.

A funny thing about this list- it does not list our bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Uzbekistan which I KNOW existed in 2003. I do wonder what rationale they list-makers used to ignore them.

I don't know whether our "troop strength abroad" was declining pre 9-11. I'm not sure that's a relevant factor because we are using bombs, shells, and rockets rather than sheer troop strength, and counting on faster deployment. If you look at our military spending by per capita, percent GNP, and percent of world total our military far outstrips the rest of the world and has never gone down to post WWII levels.

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:22 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:22 AM

Here is some locals and troops numbers you may find of interest.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1004-05.htm

Have you considered why the US had so many troops in Saudi Arabia post Desert Storms ?

Up front it was to protect the Kingdom from Iraq... but not only was Iraq beat to crap, but a huge majority of those troops were not based on the border in a defensive posture...

They were based in and near all of Saudi Arabias main cities...

Now this does not make sense to me as not only does that inflame much of the public there ( as foreign worker usually had their own compounds well out of town ) but also provided serious security issues as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/29/saudi.wrap/

Now I wonder, were they there to keep the Saudi government in line... or even more likely to provide support in the event of a coup attempt or a popular uprising against the house of Saud.

And this sort of interference has made the US loved around the world.....

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

GEEZER

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.

What was that about "Cherry-picking" again? As noted in your quotes, we had bases in Japan and Okinawa at the end of WWII. What country had we defeated in the Pacific in WWII? Japan, wasn't it? And Okinawa is part of Japan, correct? By 1952 we were almost two years into the Korean Conflict (against the Commies, as I recall) and Japan was our main forward base.

We were in the Phillipines after WWII because we had liberated it from the Japanese and were using it as a base in the continuing offensive to end the war.

So when the cold war got going we already had bases there, and we retasked them. So?

You know, I bet we had bases in Germany right after WWII also. By the '50s they were there to help keep West Germany from becoming like East Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Czechoslovkia, etc.

Also as noted in your quotes, we gave Okinawa back to Japan, and gave the Phillipines to the Filipinos. Evil us. We so bad.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:55 AM

Quote:
Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked

Just addressing a mis-statement on your part.

GEEZER

Monday, October 11, 2004 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
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.
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 did not ignore that point, I addressed it as follows:
Quote:
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!

It is irrelevant to the rest of the world whether we call these bases "defensive" or not, since they are rightly seen as forward projections of power. Any President could use these bases for offensive as well as defensive purposes. The point is that we have them, and we are the ONLY nation to have such worldwide military presence.

A funny thing about this list- it does not list our bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Uzbekistan which I KNOW existed in 2003. I do wonder what rationale they list-makers used to ignore them.

I don't know whether our "troop strength abroad" was declining pre 9-11. I'm not sure that's a relevant factor because we are using bombs, shells, and rockets rather than sheer troop strength, and counting on faster deployment. If you look at our military spending by per capita, percent GNP, and percent of world total our military far outstrips the rest of the world and has never gone down to post WWII levels.

As the only Non-Communist super-power in the second half of the 20th century, we were the only country capable of placing installations all over the world. We did so to keep Western Europe, the Middle East, South Korea, and Japan from suffering the fate of Eastern Europe. They were allies we were protecting.

As for "Any President could use these bases for offensive as well as defensive purposes." Note that the Turks didn't let us use our bases there to support the Iraq war. And we didn't even invade them too. Silly us. Don't forget that Germany opposed us on the war too, and we have plenty of bases there. Did we take over Germany recently? I don't seem to remember it.

As for our bases in Saudi, Kuwait, etc. not showing up in the Base Structure Report, remember that it consists only of property and buildings we either own or lease. It's basically a property inventory. In the Middle East we mostly use bases owned by the host countries, hence no US ownership or leasing.

And Yep, we spend a whole 3.3% of our GDP on the military(per the CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html ) More than the world average of around 2%. Probably be a lot less if we'd just pulled back to our borders after WWII and let Uncle Joe and Mao have the rest. Still less than the Chinese(3.5 to 5% estimated) or North Korea(A whopping 22.9%. Darn, the commies are still ahead on some things). Not sure about Russia. The CIA factbook has N/A for their spending.

Sorry, but I don't share your fear that we're out

GEEZER

Monday, October 11, 2004 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked
Just addressing a mis-statement on your part.

I'd have to check and see how many bases we had there say pre-1951 and how many were built after. Perhaps I should save the trouble and change my quote to:

"Most installations were built or maintained after building during or immediately after WWII, when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NEUTRINOLAD

Monday, October 11, 2004 8:58 AM

Reading the facts all you folks cite, and all the different points of view, and, come to that, methods of argument, I wonder

1. What goals do you think are most important for our society to persue?
2. What do you envision as the best (not fastest, or cheapest, or nicest, but best) methods to achieve those goals?

Maybe a list of 3 top goals for our society and 3 methods to undertake for each.
Even we don't get lively enough a discussion, maybe extend it to top 7?

Maybe this is another thread *cringe* ?

SIGNYM

Monday, October 11, 2004 4:03 PM

Geezer- It's back to work for me so I'll get back with you later.

NeutrinoLad- Seeing how involved Geezer and I get, your suggested topic is the ONLY one that would break me out of a spitting match! And what a doozy of a topic! But, as I said above, it's back to work for me so I'll get back with you later!

GEEZER

Monday, October 11, 2004 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Reading the facts all you folks cite, and all the different points of view, and, come to that, methods of argument, I wonder

1. What goals do you think are most important for our society to persue?
2. What do you envision as the best (not fastest, or cheapest, or nicest, but best) methods to achieve those goals?

Maybe a list of 3 top goals for our society and 3 methods to undertake for each.
Even we don't get lively enough a discussion, maybe extend it to top 7?

Maybe this is another thread *cringe* ?

Sounds like a good idea for another thread to me. We seem to get stuck in the same issues here, and maybe understanding what everyones' idea of a better world is would move us in a new direction.

Might want to set a couple of ground rules, like defining what "our society" is; The USA? The West? Developed countries? The UN? Everybody? Leave it open but ask folk to define which they're talking about?

Do we want to start the solutions from the current world situation, or do "could'a, should'a, would'a"? I'd prefer starting from now, as the solutions would be more practical.

It would be nice to declare a moritorium on criticism of anyones ideas for a period of time, say for a week after the thread opens. This might let everyone get their ideas up before the knives come out.

I say run with it. It'd be nice to see positive ideas for a while, instead of anti this and that all the time.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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