Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would the long-term ramifications be and do any of us on this forum really know?
Perhaps we should just build a moat around the US and burn the bridges ~ deal only with ourselves - and let the chips fall where they may in the rest of the world.
I don't know why but that doesn't make me feel any safer than our constant meddling does.
What a great idea....until the next time a group of US citizens are kidnapped and held hostage in a country on the other side of the planet. And the POUS is told... We can't get there for about a week, Sir, because we don't have any assets anywhere close to country X. And we can't get a refuel at country Y because they don't let us land there anymore.
Of course, maybe the people of the USA are going to be OK with that situation.....Somehow I don't think so.
The concept is somewhat appealing, but the reality is not nearly so inviting.
Jim B.
Perhaps Canada could foot the bill?
There is an inherent risk in traveling to certain countries, is it worth trillions of dollars over the years to mitigate it?
Look even a reduction in half of all foreign bases would be a great thing and leave us with a large overseas presence. Do we need 50,000+ personnel in Japan? Do we need 37,000 personnel in Germany, never dipping below 25,000 since WWII?!
What would the long-term ramifications be and do any of us on this forum really know?
Perhaps we should just build a moat around the US and burn the bridges ~ deal only with ourselves - and let the chips fall where they may in the rest of the world.
I don't know why but that doesn't make me feel any safer than our constant meddling does.
If Germany wants 37,000 personnel there on 38 military bases, great, Germany can write us a check funding it all. The excuse that it would hurt local German economies to close the bases is BS, we will hit $20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt soon. If Russia attacks Germany, we can help out. We don't need to pay for such a deterrence. We got dozens of other bases in Italy, the UK, throughout Europe, ridiculous.
What a great idea....until the next time a group of US citizens are kidnapped and held hostage in a country on the other side of the planet. And the POUS is told... We can't get there for about a week, Sir, because we don't have any assets anywhere close to country X. And we can't get a refuel at country Y because they don't let us land there anymore.
Of course, maybe the people of the USA are going to be OK with that situation.....Somehow I don't think so.
The concept is somewhat appealing, but the reality is not nearly so inviting.
Jim B.
Travel comes fraught with danger. We've been at this game for 71 years. I don't fear our security. It's is just ripping us apart internally.
Time for everyone to carry their own weight. If we are prodded, it's not like we won't have the ability to strike. Nobody said anything about downsizing our carrier battle groups. Just the land bases
What would the long-term ramifications be and do any of us on this forum really know?
Perhaps we should just build a moat around the US and burn the bridges ~ deal only with ourselves - and let the chips fall where they may in the rest of the world.
I don't know why but that doesn't make me feel any safer than our constant meddling does.
Hmmm.
No, we don't know. Nobody does.
Nobody is saying become isolationist. Just 71 years of this and at some point it has to end.
900 Bases in 138 countries? Hogwash. Are we counting every sentry station, listening post, checkpoint and leased outhouse? Every embassy Marine post?
I love it when some agenda-driven reporter throws out some number and everyone buys it hook, line and sinker. And of course, the righteous indignation soon follows.
Say tomorrow America were to completely abandon every foreign base it has and were to completely stop getting involved in any foriegn affairs whatsoever, what would it mean, and do you think it wouldn be a good or bad thing?
The troops wouldn't die needlessly protecting other nations borders.
The troops would have fewer dying while waiting for the VA to do their job.
The troops would be spending their money here.
Tons more money to spend on Americans.
Less taxes so we the people get to spend it and improve the economy.
America would be much safer as no country in the Middle East messed with us until we went over their and killed their people. All over oil.
I don't agree with closing all of our foreign bases, but I would definitely agree to close quite a few of them, Germany, England,and France are economic power houses and certainly don't need our protection, along with most of eastern Europe, if needed we can send troops, tanks, aircraft to there own military bases for combined training exercises (no need for charging us rent) and vices a versa. Now maybe we could build a base in Poland to keep Putin honest. ( My personal opinion is Poland has been the punching bag of Europe since WW1, If I were Polish I would be looking to build a nuclear program to keep the wolves at bay, non-proliferation treaty be damned.)
As for Asia, I would encourage the Japanese to bring there military up to modern levels, and encourage them to develop nukes of there own for deterant reasons, I would also encourage the lesser Asian powers to form there own version of NATO (possibly with Japan) for defense against a possibly aggressive China.
I am sure there are some on here that are horrified at the thought of more nuclear nations, but just remember most of those nations that do not pursue nuclear weapons do so because of a promise of protection by the US, if we suddenly pack up our toys and head home then all bets are off.
Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer of nations, Much like a hand gun makes an 90lb woman on par with a 6'4" muscled up line backer.
900 Bases in 138 countries? Hogwash. Are we counting every sentry station, listening post, checkpoint and leased outhouse? Every embassy Marine post?
I love it when some agenda-driven reporter throws out some number and everyone buys it hook, line and sinker. And of course, the righteous indignation soon follows.
900 bases? I'll call that bluff. Name them.
I could name 662 of them that were around in 2010, and probably hunt down another 100. But you are correct to be suspicious. All but 32 of them were either small sites, or sites owned on paper only. For example we had a "base" in Canada....that consisted of a rented 144 square foot space. Most are a couple acres with a cyclone fence, and no troops. BUT....32 of them were major installations with a 2016 replacement cost in the billion dollar range. Thats still a LOT of foreign bases! and that was in 2010.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and vices a versa. Now maybe we could build a base in Poland to keep Putin honest. ( My personal opinion is Poland has been the punching bag of Europe since WW1, If I were Polish I would be looking to build a nuclear program to keep the wolves at bay, non-proliferation treaty be damned.
)
