StreetScooby 5 #76 October 24, 2008 Quote >does imply that I advocate both strong defense and strong offense. Right - and that's where we disagree. You did it, again. Where we really disagree is your perceived right to distort my words.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,383 #77 October 24, 2008 >You did it, again. Where we really disagree is your perceived right to distort >my words. Disagreeing with your stated position is not distorting your words. It's just disagreeing with you. It doesn't mean I think you're bad or anything; I just disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #78 October 24, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8Mwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #79 October 25, 2008 Quote Disagreeing with your stated position is not distorting your words. My stated position has nothing to do with offensive military capabilities. You keep trying to drag it to that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,383 #80 October 25, 2008 >My stated position has nothing to do with offensive military capabilities. BV: Didn't you just write that "OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world?" SS: Yes, in every way. BV: If you mean "every way but militarily" then I agree with you, and I hope we continue to lead the world in things like economic growth, foreign aid and scientific research. SS: No, I really do mean all of the above. That includes militarily. Then I disagree with you. We do NOT need to be "the clear winner" militarily, for we cannot "win" every military conflict in the world without having a massive offensive military force. I am sorry if you do not like that I disagree with you, but that will not change my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #81 October 25, 2008 Quote >That's it we'll shut ourselves off completely from the rest of the world and >especially our military . . . No, JUST our military. Take Australia. They have no military bases in the US. Yet, believe it or not, you can buy stuff there, travel there, email people there and even go to school there! They even send their military folks to our shores on occasion for training. Startling, I know. But if they can do it, so can we. Heck you can even skydive here...stunning, I know!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaGoliath11 0 #82 October 25, 2008 Quote Quote >That's it we'll shut ourselves off completely from the rest of the world and >especially our military . . . No, JUST our military. Take Australia. They have no military bases in the US. Yet, believe it or not, you can buy stuff there, travel there, email people there and even go to school there! They even send their military folks to our shores on occasion for training. Startling, I know. But if they can do it, so can we. Heck you can even skydive here...stunning, I know! yeah that sure was a straw man if I ever saw one. Comparing Australia to this argument about U.S. Base closure? There is no base there man! Basically to some posters the USFK (U.S. Forces Korea) has little value and we should just leave. USAEUR Germany is a slightly different story, and anybody thats actually been there recently will tell you the winds of change blowing thru the U.S. Army and our significant downsizing there. Of course there has been huge downsizing in Korea as well. Also you can skydive in Korea too, ask most Koreans living in Korea (even young college students) and see what they say about the USFK just up and leaving. The response you'll get from some will be indifference, others their face will turn white, ask Korean Army Officers and Politicians and you'll get an unequivocal response indicating that this cannot happen. Yes, Korea can defend itself. But the U.S. involvement there goes way beyond military or political reasons. Its an emotional topic, Korea and the U.S. are linked by blood. This can be easily observed by a quick glance of the demographics of the U.S. Army. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #83 October 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo how do you think that foreign countries feel when they have fucking US military bases in their countries?? What, you think that we just go in and start building a base (combat areas excluded)? Fuggin ridiculous. The country signs a contract with the US for that base to be built and supported, so I'm guessing they're pretty ok with it in general. Okinawa is a good rebuttal for that concept. Referendum in '96 identified that over 80% wanted the number of US bases reduced or removed/relocated. Each Governor has petitioned both the US and Japanese Govt's and Gov Ota actually refused the sign the leases for over a year until a ruling by the Japanese high court (brought about by the Japanese Govt) forced him to. The State dept CRS this year outlines things are still tetchy: "Implementation of the plan to relocate 8,000 Marines to Guam and to replace the controversial Futenma Marine Air Station in Okinawa remains slow. Many of the agreement’s most controversial elements are likely to face continued obstacles, particularly from local Japanese politicians in the areas identified to host new facilities and troops...The reduction of marines on Okinawa seeks to quell the political controversy that has surrounded the presence of U.S. forces on the island for years.The recent charge that a U.S. Marine raped a young Japanese girl renewed public outcry against the bases that had existed since the 1995 rape of a Japanese schoolgirl by American servicemen." SACO recommended Futenma's return "Between 2001 and 2003".xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #84 October 25, 2008 Quote There is going to come a time where OUR COUNTRY needs to commit to being a clear winner in the world. Seriously, what do you mean by a "clear winner"? And by what means do you propose to achieve that goal? QuoteAnd I expect it's going to happen sooner rather than later. It's going to be vitally important that OUR COUNTRY stands as one when that happens. What do you mean by this statement? Asking for clarification here: do you mean that dissent should be prohibited? Can you imagine a scenario to achieving "clear winner" status that goes against your core beliefs? Should everyone in the country be required "stand as one" in that situation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #85 October 25, 2008 Don't flame me for the comparison, I was just pointing out that in addition to e-mail, universities and shops we also have dz's! xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaGoliath11 0 #86 October 25, 2008 yeah, don't flatter yourself. I wasn't flaming you, I was responding to a logical argument BillVon and I are discussing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaGoliath11 0 #87 October 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo how do you think that foreign countries feel when they have fucking US military bases in their countries?? What, you think that we just go in and start building a base (combat areas excluded)? Fuggin ridiculous. The country signs a contract with the US for that base to be built and supported, so I'm guessing they're pretty ok with it in general. Okinawa is a good rebuttal for that concept. Referendum in '96 identified that over 80% wanted the number of US bases reduced or removed/relocated. Each Governor has petitioned both the US and Japanese Govt's and Gov Ota actually refused the sign the leases for over a year until a ruling by the Japanese high court (brought about by the Japanese Govt) forced him to. The State dept CRS this year outlines things are still tetchy: "Implementation of the plan to relocate 8,000 Marines to Guam and to replace the controversial Futenma Marine Air Station in Okinawa remains slow. Many of the agreement’s most controversial elements are likely to face continued obstacles, particularly from local Japanese politicians in the areas identified to host new facilities and troops...The reduction of marines on Okinawa seeks to quell the political controversy that has surrounded the presence of U.S. forces on the island for years.The recent charge that a U.S. Marine raped a young Japanese girl renewed public outcry against the bases that had existed since the 1995 rape of a Japanese schoolgirl by American servicemen." SACO recommended Futenma's return "Between 2001 and 2003". yeah you're right Okinawa is a good rebuttal, but not because the 12 year old rape incident you are flaunting. You know nothing of the situation with U.S. bases overseas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaGoliath11 0 #88 October 25, 2008 ya know I'm gonna go ahead and apologize for my tone to you about this topic Jasmin. The rape in Okinawa situation is a little touchy for most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #89 October 25, 2008 It was a bad situation for everyone in the theater. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,383 #90 October 25, 2008 >Comparing Australia to this argument about U.S. Base closure? There is no base there man! And they have no base here! And yet we did not have to "shut ourselves completely from them." We have a pretty good relationship with them overall. >But the U.S. involvement there goes way beyond military or political reasons. Yes, and that's great! That involvement will continue even if we withdraw our military presence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MegaGoliath11 0 #91 October 25, 2008 Quote>Comparing Australia to this argument about U.S. Base closure? There is no base there man! And they have no base here! And yet we did not have to "shut ourselves completely from them." We have a pretty good relationship with them overall. >But the U.S. involvement there goes way beyond military or political reasons. Yes, and that's great! That involvement will continue even if we withdraw our military presence. no it won't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #92 October 25, 2008 Bill's correct. The involvement will continue even if we withdrew our military completely. Economic fundamentals mandate it. Shutting down our overseas bases would be a bad thing in many cases, good thing in many others. Case by case analysis would be required. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #93 October 25, 2008 Cutting spending would be a good thing, but if you'd look at the budget and see the overall $ amount spent on maintaining overseas bases - even add in the MPN$ associated with that - I think you'd be surprised at the percentages you'd get. Discretionary and entitlement spending in other areas would be a much, much easier thing to target. I wouldn't disagree with you that overseas bases should be on the table for elimination/reduction. I think EVERYTHING should be on the table, as it's time to face reality. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #94 October 25, 2008 Quote My stated position has nothing to do with offensive military capabilities. I think it would be fair if it did. Mine does. For a nation like the US, an offensive capability IS a defensive capability. Guys, it's a dangerous world out there. I reiterate: this issue must be evaluated strategically, not tactically, and that means over the long term, not the short. The next conflict will happen; then the next one; then the next one. Having military bases pre-positioned globally benefits US interests far more than it detriments. The gutting and under-preparedness of the US military in the 1920's & 30's cost us dearly in blood and treasure. You really think the Cold War is over? Even today, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, etc. would love nothing more than to cut our balls off if they had half the chance. If we fail to heed those lessons of history, shame on us, for we will lose the moral authority to look our grandchildren in the eye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #95 October 25, 2008 Quote yeah you're right Okinawa is a good rebuttal, but not because the 12 year old...incident. The 1995 incident & the one in feb this year were never the be all and end all, its just they galvanised opposition and became a rallying point for a multitude of concerns/opposition Eg the degree of immunity afforded US forces, disproportional deployment (Okinawa65% of US forces in Japan), the location of bases in built up areas, aircraft noise, nuclear weapons on the isles, decimation of civilian population in WWII leading to anti-(any)military sentiments etc etc etc And linking in to the OP's comments about agreements being signed, this wasn't strictly the case. It was a caveat of the 1971 agreement for Okinawa's reversion to Japan that the US retain 'use of facilities and areas'. The territory being ceded (Okinawa/ryukyu [& daito]) had no real say in it. And again, Governor Oto's reluctance to proxy sign the leases. I agree there are significant positives to having US bases in foreign territories eg security/defence, economic influx, literacy programs, aid entitlements etc This post and my other were aimed at those who don't understand that, while I'm rather ambivalent in my feelings towards US bases abroad, many others are not "generally ok with it". The communities most affected often have little say in decisions made at the strategic/national level and furthermore that the effects of US bases (both positive and negative) are not negligible to the communities they're cited in. Edited to add: Oh and thanks MG for the apology, while not strictly due, it speaks volumes of your character xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,383 #96 October 25, 2008 >no it won't. That's why I used Australia as an example. Yes, in fact, it does continue without military bases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #97 October 25, 2008 Quote Discretionary and entitlement spending in other areas would be a much, much easier thing to target. Discretionary wars would be a really good place to start.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #98 October 25, 2008 QuoteQuote If we fail to heed those lessons of history, shame on us, for we will lose the moral authority to look our grandchildren in the eye. Leaving them a $10 TRILLION debt doesn't give us any moral authority to begin with, so how can we lose it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #99 October 25, 2008 (non-sequitur) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #100 October 25, 2008 Quote(non-sequitur) Why are you posting a non sequitur?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 0 #99 October 25, 2008 (non-sequitur) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #100 October 25, 2008 Quote(non-sequitur) Why are you posting a non sequitur?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
