29 Oct 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedMy short answer would be "yes". I've been saying for years that America does not have the duty to police the globe. It's time other countries take greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than relying on America (and it's taxpayers) to protect them. That money could be better spent to pay down our national debt, and repair our crumbling infrastructure. The conservatives here (who seem hellbent on starting another war) would disagree of course.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by bill718Like the argument put forth when we invaded Viet Nam, there will be a domino effect, South Viet Nam goes commie, next would be Cambodia, then Thailand, etc.
My short answer would be "yes". I've been saying for years that America does not have the duty to police the globe. It's time other countries take greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than relying on America (and it's taxpayers) to protect them. That money could be better spent to pay down our national debt, and repair our crumbling infrastru ...[text shortened]... re. The conservatives here (who seem hellbent on starting another war) would disagree of course.
Looks like the best decision the US made was to NOT invade North Viet Nam, not wanting to run into a few hundred thousand Chinese soldiers. Too bad we invaded in the first place though.
30 Oct 15
US military bases around the globe are a bit of an anachronism, sure. But their main effect is to stimulate the local economy. I don't see why the local countries would be so worried. But if they don't want them then, sure, remove them. Who cares? Military bases on allied countries don't serve much purpose in 2015.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by bill718You think the USA's military presence around the world is not allied with its own political and economic interests but is rather some sort of global humanitarian community service?
My short answer would be "yes". I've been saying for years that America does not have the duty to police the globe. It's time other countries take greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than relying on America (and it's taxpayers) to protect them. That money could be better spent to pay down our national debt, and repair our crumbling infrastru ...[text shortened]... re. The conservatives here (who seem hellbent on starting another war) would disagree of course.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by Green PaladinIt does not matter what the USA's military presence around the world is allied with, it is still a waste of money.
You think the USA's military presence around the world is not allied with its own political and economic interests but is rather some sort of global humanitarian community service?
Originally posted by bill718The only problem is that you judgement is based on ignorance. You obviously have no idea what their real purpose is and therefore cannot make a genuine estimate of their benefits. Not really surprising you think they are a waste of money.
It does not matter what the USA's military presence around the world is allied with, it is still a waste of money.
30 Oct 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe real purpose of having American military bases in other countries is "supposed" to be to further America's agenda abroad, that's the story that small minded folks like you who cannot think for themselves swallow hook, line, and sinker, because they believe everything that the nice man in the suit on TV says. America's over bloated military machine is nothing more than a quasi welfare state funded by the taxpayers, all under the guise of "national security". It seems you really can fool some of the people all of the time! 😏
The only problem is that you judgement is based on ignorance. You obviously have no idea what their real purpose is and therefore cannot make a genuine estimate of their benefits. Not really surprising you think they are a waste of money.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by bill718Well, we could always make artificial islands like the Chinese.....
The real purpose of having American military bases in other countries is "supposed" to be to further America's agenda abroad, that's the story that small minded folks like you who cannot think for themselves swallow hook, line, and sinker, because they believe everything that the nice man in the suit on TV says. America's over bloated military machine is not ...[text shortened]... se of "national security". It seems you really can fool some of the people all of the time! 😏
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by bill718How come a moment ago it was all about America's "duty to police the globe"?
The real purpose of having American military bases in other countries is "supposed" to be to further America's agenda abroad, that's the story that small minded folks like you who cannot think for themselves swallow hook, line, and sinker, because they believe everything that the nice man in the suit on TV says. America's over bloated military machine is not ...[text shortened]... se of "national security". It seems you really can fool some of the people all of the time! 😏
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe US is in relative decline ie its power relative to other nations is declining. Mostly because former 3rd world nations are growing economically at a rapid pace and gaining appropriate power, but also partly because military power is no-longer as important as it was in the past.
Can't argue that one. That said, I have maintained the US is in decline and in another hundred years our empire will be gone just like Rome, Britain, Portugal, France and all the other world empires that seem to all have a limited lifespan.
I have to point out though that the US was never a world empire and is very unlikely to loose any territory of significance any time soon.
I do think the US is currently somewhat overvalued and will have to deal with that at some point ie as globalization continues I should be able to earn a similar wage to what someone doing the same work in the US would. Currently they earn up to 10 times more purely because of where they live and the influence they wield (partly through those military bases).