Dismantling an empire

Yesterday I came across this article in the Los Angeles Times, that raised the issue of the US military maintaining its' presence on the island of Okinawa. It was quite interesting in the fact that it also mentioned the number of bases the US has (700) in some 130 countries.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may...hnson-20100506

As bad as this sounds, I was completely unaware of the fact that we (the US) had so many bases in an unbelieveable amount of countries. I knew that we were regarded as a 'super power', such as Russia, and now China, but now I think we are indeed an empire. More importantly, I wonder if it is necessary to have so many bases strung throughout the globe.

I'm not one for the disarming the defense capabilities of our nation, but I do think that just the expenses alone are reason enough to consider this state of affairs as unnecessary. Particularly since it's been years since the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Bloc countries regained their sovereignty.

Yes there are still viable threats out there, possibly Russia still, as well as China, N. Korea, Iran and whatever other country garnishes itself with nuclear power - nevertheless we have nuclear brinkmanship (as always). And having some bases/ports is beneficial, and good even, as long as corresponding countries/societies can agree to it.

There are of course military logistical reasons for maintaining fortified centers of operations, however it seems a bit of overdone. Particularly since the economic mess we're in isn't helping things any.

Another reason that I'm not so game on this global military positioning, is that it makes it that much easier, or 'encouraging' I should say, to launch an assault on other regions. Which is not a good thing when you consider how eager our trigger-happy gov't., has been in the past to get us involved in conflicts.

Any thoughts?


Note: hopefully this is a thread that will have some reasonable keyboard diplomacy and not get itself closed because of someone's jactitation. Be it American or otherwise.

I don't understand why the USA needs such a huge navy. The US Navy could sink all the other Navies in the world. Do they really need 11 or so aircraft carriers?

Well that was another point I forgot to make, is that we have a big enough navy to get the job done - and no, I am not for a reduction in that or our armed forces in general, just a reduction in our military presence throughout the globe.

Without knowing more about the bases it is hard to say if they are really needed.
Some may be just radar stations or satellite tracking stations.
Some may be and quite likely are, basically refueling stations for either planes or ships. I would expect quite a few to be in various parts of Europe and often are airbases.
Just the same 700 seems awfully high and so does 130 countries.
Do they include bases in the US in the 700?
Every state has a Ntl. Guard and there are more than 50 bases alone there. Way more I expect as many have both army and air force Ntl. Guard units. Add in the regular airforce, marine, army and navy bases and it adds up in a hurry. Do they also count the US Coast Guard?
Do they also count bases such as the NORAD base in North Bay, Ont. which is a CFB base but has US personnal assigned there?
The 130 countries is harder to understand.

No doubt the cost is staggering, but in the scheme of 2010 budgets and economics, the cost of just about everything in the US is staggering.

There are in fact many "bases" that consist of a building or two on a small parcel of land. While combing through one of those giant lists I came across places I had been, and sometimes small areas off of the main "base" were considered another physical location and base. In some cases the land between the buildings is leased by the US government, but it is left open and unsecured so the general public can use the land.



I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not. Okinawa is a prime example of this type of thing. Having lived there for a year I have seen both sides of the debate, but very few people understand that Okinawans for the most part will be unhappy with just about anything the Japanese government does.

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.



As for the Navy and the carriers.... well for one we will keep building them. They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level. A carrier full of combat troops can loiter offshore for as long as needed, an aircraft can't. But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.



Good topic but I suspect the US bashers will be along soon to claim it's all Bush's fault or something. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

No doubt the cost is staggering, but in the scheme of 2010 budgets and economics, the cost of just about everything in the US is staggering.

There are in fact many "bases" that consist of a building or two on a small parcel of land. While combing through one of those giant lists I came across places I had been, and sometimes small areas off of the main "base" were considered another physical location and base. In some cases the land between the buildings is leased by the US government, but it is left open and unsecured so the general public can use the land.



I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not. Okinawa is a prime example of this type of thing. Having lived there for a year I have seen both sides of the debate, but very few people understand that Okinawans for the most part will be unhappy with just about anything the Japanese government does.

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.



As for the Navy and the carriers.... well for one we will keep building them. They are what helped us win the battle of the Pacific and their worth was made clear. They are also probably the best way to project power on a global level. A carrier full of combat troops can loiter offshore for as long as needed, an aircraft can't. But a Navy alone can't deal the all the missions the military is involved in, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.



Good topic but I suspect the US bashers will be along soon to claim it's all Bush's fault or something. ;)

---

Hmm, we have too many ships and too many bases; tell how that works to the Brits in the Falklands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Hmm, we have too many ships and too many bases;

---

My guess is that the US Navy was caught with their pants down and/or made bad decisions one early Sunday morning in 1941. Who was their chief and commanding officer/president at the time?

Somebody after that decided that would never happen again.

The next time that something like that happened was a beautiful late summer day in September 2001 when after the previous executive administration in Washington DC deregulated the armed forces that protect the US against foreign invaders.

Is their a similarity in the political aspirations of the president in 1941, who had served since 1933 and the president who was in charge pre-2001?

I think of the U.S. bases around the world more as quasi-police stations than colonies or parts of an empire. When a nation has an empire, there's usually money flowing IN from the colonies. In our case, the money goes in the other direction.

For anyone who is interested in a comparing and contrasting a super power of the ancient world with one from today, there is a wonderful book which I highly recommend: "Empires of Trust --- How Rome Built and America is Building a New World"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

The US bases consume about 20% of the land on Okinawa, and though it's true that many bases are bordered by residential areas, many of these areas were built after the bases. It is also rarely mentioned that somewhere around 30% of the land leased to the US is private land, not land owned by the government.

---

What difference does it make if the land is private or owned by the government? After the war, Finland had to lease land to a Soviet military base on the south cost of Finland (the Soviets abandoned it in 1956). The land was privately owned, but the owners had no say in it. The Finnish government just relocated them elsewhere.

I think there is a rational argument for the US forces to contract their numbers of bases around the world. There are compelling arguments though that do stand up over time why they stay. The fact is, superpowers by their mere presence in a region actually do add stability. Whether it was the USSR or the USA, no one would attack one or the other in a region, and any regional conflicts that went on near the presence of the military of a superpower did so at their peril. The US has been in a lot of nations with their bases, mainly through accident or the aftermath of wars, and the presence of their troops being there has stopped hostile action in the territories they sit in. Russia or China didn't conteplate a move on Taiwan or Japan, and the Korean conflict has hit a defacto truce because mainly of the US Military being there. So there is a benefit to the "trip wire" of the US Army in that region.

I think Jag's point is spot on though. The US pays a lot more to maintain this presence than the multinationals based in America get back in business. In short, the US could probably spend the money better elsewhere if not for the geo-political benefits of the military being spread around the world.

As for the size of the US Navy, there is a VERY good reason it is that big. It makes for a more comfortable cycle and rotation for the sailors who have to maintain and supply the military presence around the world. What is more, the cost of having to build or borrow the ships if something does come up is a LOT. Just ask the people who had to write the checks in the UK in the run up and aftermath of the Falklands.

Large nations with influence, whether it be the USSR/Russia, or the USA, or China will maintain a large military because in the end, that is how they stay a large nation with influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Large nations with influence, whether it be the USSR/Russia, or the USA, or China will maintain a large military because in the end, that is how they stay a large nation with influence.

---

And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?

---

If it makes the world safer, yes it isn't a bad idea. One thing is for sure, if the USA wasn't projecting themselves, only a fool would believe the USSR and China wouldn't have in the years of the Cold War. Even today, the US could probably do without a lot of the places they are in, but it isn't going to make the world better if they ignore things happening elsewhere. Isolationism until 1941 worked for the US, but look how well the world went to hell in a handbasket after 1919, when the US helped form the League of Nations and then walked away from it.....

Face it Eki, there are and always have been superpowers. Spain was one, the Dutch in an alliance with Spain and Venice were part of one, then the English at the time of the Armada, and then after 2 epic wars where European powers tore the guts out of each other, we have now the USA, the USSR and now Russia, and China in the Far East. Naive people think they will just mind their knitting. They influence other nations just by existing. Military power is just part of the responsbility.....to their interests and that is just the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

And why in your opinion they should have influence over their own borders?

---

Because we can.

Just like every other country tries to influence outside their borders....even Finland.


F.Y.I. Every U.S. Embassy is considered a military installation. Embassy security is handled by the U.S. Marines and each one has a small contingent of Jar Heads.

Which would explain the 130 countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Because we can.

Just like every other country tries to influence outside their borders....even Finland.


F.Y.I. Every U.S. Embassy is considered a military installation. Embassy security is handled by the U.S. Marines and each one has a small contingent of Jar Heads.

---

Jarheads....don't let your son grow up to be a Marine I guess your motto? Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...lol....

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook.


At an expenditure of $607 Billion in 2008, the United States spent more on the military than the next 14 countries COMBINED.

For those who have read more about ancient Rome than what was taught in elementary or high school, you know that the Roman Empire did not fall (solely) because of some hairy character named Atilla. He just laid some of the final blows to a sick and bloated empire... that was already in deep decline. Rome had neither the ability to govern its (non-income) producing territories, nor the support of its (once proud) citizens. It had spread itself too thin and didn't possess an effective means of governing, balancing its budget or providing for its people (near the end, Roman infrastructure projects became almost nonexistent). Sound familiar? :dozey: And just like now, there were those who believed that it was the duty of Rome to maintain the illusion of empire and power... even though trying to maintain that illusion is what helped to kill the (Western) Roman Empire.

Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two, this path that we're currently on will not lead to a good place - of that much I feel certain. And on that point, I agree with the Tea Party people. If they could just rid themselves of the ignorant rabble, loons that seem attracted to conspiracy theories and GOP'er plants, more (sane & sensible) people would probably get involved in that movement.

This is a rather old article I'm only posted it because it is a little different slant on what I've read so far.
The U.S. Military Idustrial Complex in many areas is directly linked to the livelihood of the local businesses. I think "Ike" suggested we be prudent, and cautious, as well as benevolent in this arena when he was leaving office in 1961.
BTW this is not a knock on Bush. Just an example of what could happen in every country that our empire maintains a substancial military pressence long enough to create an economically dependant community around it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1299315,00.html

Quote:

---

Despite substantial anger among the German populace at US actions in Iraq (photo), and protests at some bases, many Germans see the economic considerations outweighing moral ones when it comes to a continuing presence of American troops in the neighborhood. Officials have begun doing what they can to convince the Americans to stay

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook.


At an expenditure of $607 Billion in 2008, the United States spent more on the military than the next 14 countries COMBINED.
For those who have read more about ancient Rome than what was taught in elementary or high school, you know that the Roman Empire did not fall (solely) because of some hairy character named Atilla. He just laid some of the final blows to a sick and bloated empire... that was already in deep decline. Rome had neither the ability to govern its (non-income) producing territories, nor the support of its (once proud) citizens. It had spread itself too thin and didn't possess an effective means of governing, balancing its budget or providing for its people (near the end, Roman infrastructure projects became almost nonexistent). Sound familiar? :dozey: And just like now, there were those who believed that it was the duty of Rome to maintain the illusion of empire and power... even though trying to maintain that illusion is what helped to kill the (Western) Roman Empire.

Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two, this path that we're currently on will not lead to a good place - of that much I feel certain. And on that point, I agree with the Tea Party people. If they could just rid themselves of the ignorant rabble, loons that seem attracted to conspiracy theories and GOP'er plants, more (sane & sensible) people would probably get involved in that movement.

---

[youtube]J0Dj3d_bdNM[/youtube]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

[youtube]J0Dj3d_bdNM[/youtube]

---

I like that.

Glad to see you back. :up:

On top of landing,refueling,and embassys we also hold a base in every country we've been into a war with. This is for far more sophisticated reasons.
There are "too many naval vessels"- because the Navy has a complete machine shop set up in half of its fleet. We can remanufacture everything we have in our arsenal while at sea. There not just for transporting troops and veichels.Theres also the red cross and hospital ships all beloning to the US Navy that have aided in many tragic event that had nothing to do with us. and most people don't even know we were there.Not to mention the clean ups and assistance we provide for other universal tragedies.

Before someone says WE spend too much or have too much maybe they might look back through history and see just what we've done for everyone elses safety. Furthermopre there is alot of open water and many possible places if an attack started at three different locations on the globe we could be at all of them in an instant because most likely were allready there or close by.

Sorry but after all we've provided for all the other nations and people I would think people would be grearful that we are that accesable and ready for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

This is a rather old article I'm only posted it because it is a little different slant on what I've read so far.
The U.S. Military Idustrial Complex in many areas is directly linked to the livelihood of the local businesses. I think "Ike" suggested we be prudent, and cautious, as well as benevolent in this arena when he was leaving office in 1961.
BTW this is not a knock on Bush. Just an example of what could happen in every country that our empire maintains a substancial military pressence long enough to create an economically dependant community around it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1299315,00.html

---

Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swoop

On top of landing,refueling,and embassys we also hold a base in every country we've been into a war with. This is for far more sophisticated reasons.

---

Not in Vietnam, as far as I know. Yet the Vietnamese have not taken over the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.

---

I agree with you Eki. IMO they need to quit us "cold turkey"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Finland survived the fall of the Soviet Union (about 25% of our exports suddenly disappeared). I'm sure those economically dependent on the US will survive too.

---

Easy for a Finn to say ...lol.

Canada's economy is tied due to Geography to the US. We have the best recovery underway of all the G-8 despite the slow economy in the south, but there is a limit to how this can happen when we are one tenth the population of our neighbour to the south and they are our largest trading partners. Making more trade with China, Japan and the EC works, but geography being what it is, it isn't as natural a trade relationship.

America isn't going to die or fade off into the sunset. They just will adapt and move on....because unlike the old USSR, the economy of the US has a lot more going for it and a system of governing that will more or less allow it to recover...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Country by GDP Rank ($ Amt.) / Military Spending $ Amt / % of Global Milit. Spending

#1 United States ($14.430 Trillion) / $607 Billion / 41.5%
#2 Japan ($5.108 Trillion) / 46.3 Billion / 3.2%
#3 People's Republic of China ($4.814 Trillion) / $84.9 Billion / 5.8%
#4 Germany ($3.273 Trillion) / $46.8 Billion / 3.2%
#5 France ($2.666 Trillion) / $65.7 Billion / 4.5%
#6 United Kingdom ($2.198 Trillion) / $65.3 Billion / 4.5%
#7 Italy ($2.090 Trillion) / $40.6 Billion / 2.8%
#8 Brazil ($1.499 Trillion) / $23.3 Billion / 1.6%
#9 Spain ($1.466 Trillion) / $19.2 Billion / 1.3%
#10 Canada ($1.335 Trillion) / $19.3 Billion / 1.3%
#11 Russia ($1.232 Trillion) / $58.6 Billion / 4.0%

*Data from 2009 CIA World Factbook.


Whether it's military expenditures or entitlements, or more likely, a combination of the two,

---

No it is the entitlements and asinine laws or edicts that come with them that are destroying this country.
Military spending is always flatulated forth by liberals, as evil, (they want to flush more of that money down the entitlement toilet) but is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The only radical thing coming from the TEA party concern, is bogus claims put forth by the liberal press.

When anyone — generally people in possession of a feeling of insecurity — says their country is being 'destroyed' by anything, their argument has no credibility. The US will still be around in 50, 100, 150 years' time, come what may. People say the same about the UK. It won't happen, no matter who is in power. This is not complacency, merely common sense. And if it's meant figuratively, then those saying it should be more circumspect in their use of language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Not in Vietnam, as far as I know. Yet the Vietnamese have not taken over the world.

---

You want an honest opinion about Vietnam, come to St. Cloud ,Minn, and visit the Vietnam War memorial dedicated to the Vietnamese and surrounding countries soldiers who fought and died with the U.S. and then were forced to leave by Dem. cutting and running.
When they have their memorial service, fill them with your idyllic bs that say they were wrong to fight, and try to save their countries.
You may get an earful, or eyeful of fist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You want an honest opinion about Vietnam, come to St. Cloud ,Minn, and visit the Vietnam War memorial dedicated to the Vietnamese and surrounding countries soldiers who fought and died with the U.S. and then were forced to leave by Dem. cutting and running.
When they have their memorial service, fill them with your idyllic bs that say they were wrong to fight, and try to save their countries.
You may get an earful, or eyeful of fist.

---

It is nice to know that alternative viewpoints regarding the nation's role in conflicts are tolerated so openly in the American heartland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Easy for a Finn to say ...lol.

Canada's economy is tied due to Geography to the US. We have the best recovery underway of all the G-8 despite the slow economy in the south, but there is a limit to how this can happen when we are one tenth the population of our neighbour to the south and they are our largest trading partners. Making more trade with China, Japan and the EC works, but geography being what it is, it isn't as natural a trade relationship.

America isn't going to die or fade off into the sunset. They just will adapt and move on....because unlike the old USSR, the economy of the US has a lot more going for it and a system of governing that will more or less allow it to recover...

---

If the U.S. collapses it will be destroyed from within, not any where else.

The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country.

The special treatment of muslim concerns, and the wetback cancer, now given by gov. and major press, is just a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

If the U.S. collapses it will be destroyed from within, not any where else.

The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country.

The special treatment of muslim concerns, and the wetback cancer, now given by gov. and major press, is just a start.

---

'Collapse'? Here we go again. See my post above.

And maybe you might care to re-write this sentence — 'The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country' — in English. I genuinely haven't a clue what you're saying, and I have read it a couple of times. I'm not being sarcastic here, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is nice to know that alternative viewpoints regarding the nation's role in conflicts are tolerated so openly in the American heartland.

---

They fought and died fiercly for their countries; they have earned the right to deal with asininely annoying liberal bs in any matter they choose.

The U.S. government finally gave in and stopped trying to prosecute one of the most beloved Hmong military officers for supposedly trying to overthrow the gov. that exists there now.
I do not know if it was for a lack of decent evidence, or the strong negative respoins the U.S. actions was getting from the Hmong community.
Bob
PS-- it was George Bush dick-heads trying to prosecute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

They fought and died fiercly for their countries; they have earned the right to deal with asininely annoying liberal bs in any matter they choose.

---

The same applies the other way round, for instance when forces are sent into battle by a right-wing administration for undesirable reasons, and die unnecessarily as a result. And not all members of the armed forces of any nation are reactionary conservatives, it must be pointed out. To suggest that they are all of like political mind is simply untrue. In historical terms, it is also deeply revisionist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

'Collapse'? Here we go again. See my post above.

And maybe you might care to re-write this sentence — 'The divide and separate plan used by the liberals, with rino help it what will do as various-- "DIVERSITY"-- elements pull further and further apart, caring only about what government owes them, and to hell with the country' — in English. I genuinely haven't a clue what you're saying, and I have read it a couple of times. I'm not being sarcastic here, either.

---

The method of gaining political ground used by liberals, and repuclican-in-name-only catering to more liberal voters, rather than the conservative republican base which amountes to gaining votes from one of the groups within the, loudly proclaimed, diverse societies, which are gaining strength by being separate from, rather than part of U.S. society as a whole, will hasten fracturing the country from within; thereby causing a collapse or implosion from within, as each society devotes efforts to only that which serves their separate culture, without regard, to the impact on others or simply if it is good for the country as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The method of gaining political ground used by liberals, and repuclican-in-name-only catering to more liberal voters, rather than the conservative republican base which amountes to gaining votes from one of the groups within the, loudly proclaimed, diverse societies, which are gaining strength by being separate from, rather than part of U.S. society as a whole, will hasten fracturing the country from within; thereby causing a collapse or implosion from within, as each society devotes efforts to only that which serves their separate culture, without regard, to the impact on others or simply if it is good for the country as a whole.

---

OK, I just about get it now, although more than one sentence would be best. I think it's paranoid rubbish of the highest order, don't get me wrong, but I do vaguely understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The same applies the other way round, for instance when forces are sent into battle by a right-wing administration for undesirable reasons, and die unnecessarily as a result. And not all members of the armed forces of any nation are reactionary conservatives, it must be pointed out. To suggest that they are all of like political mind is simply untrue. In historical terms, it is also deeply revisionist.

---

It is THEIR memorial commemorating THEIR fellow soldiers; if some dick-head wants to have a history revising snit-fit, he/she can do somewhere else.\-------------------------

The press were able to report, and it is liberal, no Hmong-- who thought that the former General should be prosecuted.
Had there been any the liberals would have found them quickly.
So if you think that the North were the good guys in Nam, Laos and Cambodia, you have only your opinion to support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

OK, I just about get it now, although more than one sentence would be best. I think it's paranoid rubbish of the highest order, don't get me wrong, but I do vaguely understand it.

---

Come live in the U.S.; racial prejudice may be down, but ethnic prejudice exceeds the extremely high rate it once had before hating Negroes became popular.
As a youth, I knew rabid ethnic hatred for over a decade before anyone in my community ever uttered a bad word about Negroes.
It is back and it is thriving and as taxes are being used for special groups, unless the common good takes claim over the good of the minority group, it will destroy this country.
Those who think it cannot happen, are to a good degree, the same to thought the Soviet Union could not collapse in a single year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It is THEIR memorial commemorating THEIR fellow soldiers; if some dick-head wants to have a history revising snit-fit, he/she can do somewhere else.

---

Listen, I think Vietnam was disgusting, but do you really think that THOSE (why the capitals in your post, by the way? They run the risk of making your posts inarticulately aggressive) of us on the left who disagree with such things go around causing a disturbance at war memorials?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Come live in the U.S.; racial prejudice may be down, but ethnic prejudice exceeds the extremely high rate it once had before hating Negroes became popular.
As a youth, I knew rabid ethnic hatred for over a decade before anyone in my community ever uttered a bad word about Negroes.
It is back and it is thriving and as taxes are being used for special groups, unless the common good takes claim over the good of the minority group, it will destroy this country.
Those who think it cannot happen, are to a good degree, the same to thought the Soviet Union could not collapse in a single year.

---

Ah, so you are a racist. Nice to have it out in the open. In fact, that is surely the most open statement of racism anyone has dared post on here. Well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swoop

Before someone says WE spend too much or have too much maybe they might look back through history and see just what we've done for everyone elses safety. Furthermopre there is alot of open water and many possible places if an attack started at three different locations on the globe we could be at all of them in an instant because most likely were allready there or close by.

Sorry but after all we've provided for all the other nations and people I would think people would be grearful that we are that accesable and ready for them.

---

With all due respect, the exact same argument could have been used 1600 years ago in the Roman Senate. In fact, it probably was...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

With all due respect, the exact same argument could have been used 1600 years ago in the Roman Senate. In fact, it probably was...

---

Do the message boards of the day contain evidence of same?