Does This Constitute An Empire...??

**Jet Gorgon** · 20-11-2008, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

So, only 100 troops in Canada? Geez, hope they aren't all in solitary confinement across the country.

Wonder if the US military counts deserters. Could be the answer!!

Ah, so thery're all in Nelson, BC, then. Bladdy hippie tree huggers.

Originally Posted by astasinim

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Lots of Brit troops in my country, too. They like to blow up stuff in southern Alberta.

Ive been guilty of doing that.

Bladdy great it was too. Bits of prairie dogs everywhere.

You blew up our gophers? No wonder there's none left when I go target shooting at gram's farm near the Hat. Bladdy limey!

Interesting about that refueling stn in NZ, Ant & Plan B. Thanks.

**Butterfly** · 20-11-2008, 08:32 AM

looks like they missed Africa, along with Russia and China

**Rural Surin** · 20-11-2008, 12:35 PM

Whatta ya mean Butters? Africa is respresented throughout those {updated} maps. Well known that there is a working agreement between the US and Russia - even if it might be a wee strained today. China.....??? Fill me in please.

**Texpat** · 20-11-2008, 12:46 PM

Having a base on some country or another hardly exemplifies an Empire. A 5-man team in New Zealand to load and refuel 10 flights a year to Antarctica constitutes the country being red? Part of the Empire, is it? Are you aware every embassy (I think) has a Defense Attache Office manned by active duty military officers? I would think the whole world should be red.

Another paranoid, half-cocked thread by a comparison-obsessed Chicken Little. Why is it of such great concern to you that many, many countries want to cooperate and work with the great and powerful US?

Maybe your crazed, frightful flotsam is really just poorly-informed, childish nonsense.

**good2bhappy** · 20-11-2008, 01:06 PM

"The age of the American Empire"
I watched a documentary a few years ago!

**Jet Gorgon** · 20-11-2008, 01:12 PM

^ I saw the Empire Strikes Back, too.

**Rural Surin** · 20-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Having a base on some country or another hardly exemplifies an Empire. A 5-man team in New Zealand to load and refuel 10 flights a year to Antarctica constitutes the country being red? Part of the Empire, is it? Are you aware every embassy (I think) has a Defense Attache Office manned by active duty military officers? I would think the whole world should be red.

Another paranoid, half-cocked thread by a comparison-obsessed Chicken Little. Why is it of such great concern to you that many, many countries want to cooperate and work with the great and powerful US?

Maybe your crazed, frightful flotsam is really just poorly-informed, childish nonsense.

Some country or another? Please Tex, you make it sound as if the American presence is just a couple here and there. It engulfs the world. Don't be an apologist, just understand things as they are. The intitial OP was not intended to be highly critically biased. Just providing subjective food for thought. As a distant American myself, I recognize the conditioning in you that encircles American thought about themselves. You {we} are conditioned from birth to grave that America has never been an empire nor does she ever have/had the desire to create one. Nonsense. America's history is rife without quasi-colonial and neo-imperialistic threads. Today's broad coverage is equal to the height of the British Victoria era. I understand your military background and whatnot. That's fine. Instinctively, this sort of propogandic extensions lends itself to a {sort of} make-believe patriotic and nationalist mindset. I find this unworthy of a intelligent and reasonably logical fellow as yourself. Have a pleasant day.....

**Texpat** · 20-11-2008, 01:15 PM

An empire exists when a country invades, grabs the land, intent on keeping it and ruling it.

The US is in all but a few countries AT THE REQUEST and INVITATION of the sovereign government in charge. All subject to mutual treaties.

That's hardly an Empire.

Don't be an apologist

That's a joke, right?
You're just an ill-informed know-it-all with verbal diarrhea.

Save it.

**Rural Surin** · 20-11-2008, 01:26 PM

This still doesn't negate the fact that you are highly ignorant of America's real history, less real world history. You could even be caste as a typical unknowlegable American. You, and your ilke, are embarrassing.

**Texpat** · 20-11-2008, 01:34 PM

Tell us more about the Empire, Einstein.

How many of your red states are dominated by the US politically or militarily?

**Bugs** · 20-11-2008, 06:31 PM

I don’t think the presence of US military bases in a number of countries around the globe is what allows folks to debate the existence of an American Empire. I do think that in the centuries to come many a history book will note the period following the end of WWII, as an American Empire. But this has little to due with US military presence in a large number of foreign countries. It has to do with the incredible amount of influence the US has been able to wield over the years, yes to some extent because of US military power, but much more so because of US economic power.

Hell, one of the main tools the US utilizes to gain access/ set-up military bases around the globe is economic not military might. To that end the world economic picture is starting to change, and the US is more and more intertwined with other world economies – which in many ways actually helps maintain the US economic might (too big to be allowed to fail kind of thing), but more and more countries depend less (but still the most) on the US economy.

As for Thailand and the spread of communism, from what I have read I would agree that the threat of communism to Thailand was over politicized (by both the US and Thailand). But I don’t agree that Thailand was somehow manhandled into allowing for a US presence in the country during the late 60’s and 70’s. Nor do I agree that the Thai’s (especially The Man and his family) didn’t give a fok about their political destiny as it pertains to communism. It is the Kingdom of Thailand and would not likely still be a Kingdom had communism sprouted and grew in the Kingdom.

The folks in power at the time in Thailand used the issue just as much, if not more, than the US to promote their own ability to maintain control of power in Thailand. They also took advantage of the issue to take vengeance on their opposition by cloaking them (the opposition) in the veil of communism. To assign all or even the majority of blame for the presence of the US military in Thailand during that era on the US as opposed to Thailand ignores the politicalization of the issue internally in Thailand and how it was used by those in power to not only get money from the US but to maintain their own positions of power and use the issue to keep ALL opposition suppressed.

**keda** · 20-11-2008, 07:14 PM

For the historians that trawl the www to find whatever's needed to suit their hypothesis, wasn't it the European empire builders that controlled much of the world including the US, Canada, Oz, ME, India and most of Africa? Come to think of it not much they didn't own outside of Russia and the almond eyes. Then they backed off home and left the US to make the sacrifices when the wogs couldn't handle being in control.

**blackgang** · 20-11-2008, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

I believe your history has been a bit twisted and revised for you my friend. Contrary to popular historical illusion

You really are full of shit and just keep harping on things you know nothing about, seem to be a paranoid asshole as well [ Must be the yaba], why are you so afraid of the US military?
You have no chance of ever being bothered by any of them so why not just chill out instead of letting your fear of them rule your life.

**Rural Surin** · 21-11-2008, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

I believe your history has been a bit twisted and revised for you my friend. Contrary to popular historical illusion

You really are full of shit and just keep harping on things you know nothing about, seem to be a paranoid asshole as well [ Must be the yaba], why are you so afraid of the US military?
You have no chance of ever being bothered by any of them so why not just chill out instead of letting your fear of them rule your life.

Got you a little shaky and uptight did I old man? What a fucktwit....

**Jet Gorgon** · 21-11-2008, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bugs

Hell, one of the main tools the US utilizes to gain access/ set-up military bases around the globe is economic not military might.

Beg to differ. I think it's strategic positioning. The US mil is positioned in various regions so it can get to trouble spots faster, no? Sure, mebbe to protect US economic interests but also to be closer to disaster areas.

**Bugs** · 21-11-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by Bugs

Hell, one of the main tools the US utilizes to gain access/ set-up military bases around the globe is economic not military might.

Beg to differ. I think it's strategic positioning. The US mil is positioned in various regions so it can get to trouble spots faster, no? Sure, mebbe to protect US economic interests but also to be closer to disaster areas.

Historically there is no arguing putting bases in various locations around the globe was related to strategic positioning. And having troops in all parts of the world to act/react as fast as possible. But many of those that are still in operation or have been opened up recently could be called strategic more for political as opposed to logistical reasons.

Actually I think the fact that there are so many US bases located around the globe today is a remnant of the way the military worked and processed information in the past. In today’s world it is not all that difficult for the US to impose military might anywhere in the globe directly from the US. Many of the existing bases are there because of the old thinking, based upon old technology, and the need to have troops places closer to points of conflict. This is not to say all overseas bases are there because of out of date thinking. There are plenty of bases around the glob that are created, or are still in operation based mainly on political reasons or political implications.

This is also not to say that there are not some bases located outside of the US that do serve significant roles logistically as well. Germany is a good example of this. Germany plays an important logistical role not so much because of the ability to place combat troops into battle, but due to the role it has played over the years in a supply, and as a medical waypoint, in various conflicts the US has been involved in.

On the flip side take a look at South Korea. Even though there are in excess of 30k US troops in South Korea I would classify the main reason for their continued existence in Korea as more a political statement than a logistical necessity. Hell, there is no way that 30k US troops would serve as any kind of significant stop-gap measure to buy any addition time should the North choose to move on the South. But you can bet your ass that their presence in country has been something that the North has to take into account. Additionally if tomorrow morning the people of the US woke to read headlines about 30k dead US service people in South Korea because the North did make a move, that there would be little to no debate about if the US should get involved in going to war with the North.

For another example take a look at the Philippines. When the US left (were asked to leave) there was a lot of talk about how that might affect the ability of US forces to act and react in the region. Given the current state of things I don’t think that it would prove difficult for the US to reopen bases in the Philippines (now that they have seen the amount of money that these bases mean to the local economies). But given the current state of technology there simply is no need (logistically) for that to happen.

All this being said the particular part of my post that you quoted was not meant to infer that the bases have been put into place for economic reasons. But that economics was the means by which the US gets other countries to agree to allow for US troops to be based in their countries in the first place.

**sabang** · 21-11-2008, 04:10 PM

The problem with US military bases abroad is mainly that there are too many of them in places where they do little tangible good in the modern age- shovelling money into local economies the exception. For example, why are so many US military required in Germany now? Or even the UK?

I think the Pentagon needs to do an audit- under the watchful eyes of the government- seperate the wheat from the chaff, and rationalise accordingly. This needs to be imposed from above- like any other bureaucracy, the Pentagon will not just voluntarily vacate bases because of the inconvenient fact they are no longer required.

**Norton** · 21-11-2008, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

I think the Pentagon needs to do an audit- under the watchful eyes of the government- seperate the wheat from the chaff, and rationalise accordingly. This needs to be imposed from above- like any other bureaucracy, the Pentagon will not just voluntarily vacate bases because of the inconvenient fact they are no longer required.

This is "supposed" to be the way the system works. The Pentagon, under the Department of Defense is asked every year to reassess it's military expenditures based on policies/priorities set by the Government (Administration/Congress). Troop reduction, base closures and the like are all part of the reassessment. At the moment about 200,000 US military are deployed on "permanent assignment" outside the US. S. Korea, Japan and Germany. This down from 450,000 since the end of the cold war with the bulk coming out of Germany.

As with you, I can't see the need for significant "permanent assignment" personnel in Germany and further reduction there should be looked at. Japan may be another. S. Korea needs to have a substantial force given the strong possibility of a N. Korean military attack on the south. But "permanent forces", (combat ready forces) abroad are not the big issue.

The number of bases is a much bigger issue that really needs some adult management. It's almost impossible to find a correct count but numbers from 700 to 1000 in 130 countries seem to be a consensus of the number "owned" by US with 53,000 personnel stationed within these bases. Then there are those not "owned" but where US personnel are stationed. In the UK US personnel live in Royal Air Force bases for example. The Pentagon is either unwilling or unable to give figures for staffing and running these bases. Maybe someone can find it as I can't. Having been to many bases both domestic and international, most resemble small cities. The costs for maintaining and running 700 to 1000 bases must be tens of billion per year.

Even if the policies of the US do not change regarding bases that allow for the support of the timely movement of troops to a particular region of conflict, the number of bases surely can be drastically reduced.

Congress does need to get a fair and accurate accounting and make appropriate changes as is their oversight duty. Hope they do a better job than they have with oversight of the financial services industry.

**GooMaiRoo** · 22-11-2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Bugs

Actually I think the fact that there are so many US bases located around the globe today is a remnant of the way the military worked and processed information in the past. In today’s world it is not all that difficult for the US to impose military might anywhere in the globe directly from the US. Many of the existing bases are there because of the old thinking, based upon old technology, and the need to have troops places closer to points of conflict.

Yep, the USA can extend its influence with money, surrogates, diplomacy, its intelligence apparatus and small amounts of mobile hi-tech weaponry such as drones. These anachronistic bases and soldiers might be strategically useless but they feed billions of dollars into the military industrial complex. It's a form of corporate welfare. Just follow the money, where Dick Cheney's name often turns up like a bad penny. In addition to the numerous Iraqi projects, the massive Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo was also built by a Halliburton subsidiary. Rural Surin, not to worry. These bases aren't really extending the American empire, they're helping to bankrupt it.

Thread: Does This Constitute An Empire...??

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions