Dismantling an empire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So Syphilis and AIDS are equal in your mind?

---

If the US, Russia and China are equal in your mind. I meant that a lesser evil is still evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

I think all the bases in other countries except our territories should operate with a profit. South Korea should pay for our presence. If the base is not profitable then close it.
Also due to our economic condition all foreign aid should be suspended.

---

I agree with that. Not so much for profit, but at least the operating costs... especially in the case of certain (most) nations where it benefits them a LOT more than the American taxpayer, who is picking up the bill.

Before I'd pay a G.I. to walk the line in some desolate crap hole, protecting someone else's freedoms (or whatever made up term people want to dream up), I'd have that guy working on a bridge or road here... or if still in the military, I'd have him on the border with Mexico with his .50 cal trained on a Zeta across the border. People might have an issue with this, but I'd put him in Chicago or south central L.A., patrolling a drug infested area, which is (literally) being terrorized by street gangs.

It royally pisses me off when we send our troops overseas, at OUR EXPENSE, yet we have budget issues and more than enough problems right here to deal with. That DOES NOT mean that I'm for eliminating the military presence overseas. Nor do I fall for the (hyerbolic) argument that some like to use: anyone who isn't in favor of spending us into a military spending hole is an isolationist. I'm not an isolationist, nor am I a protectionist (in regard to trade). But I do not believe that we should be taken advantage of at every turn. And like I said, anyone who willingly bends over and takes it, while others get a virtual free ride, is a SUCKER! And looking at the amount we spend on the global military presence, where we spend it, the % of GDP that it represents and the fact that a lot of the countries where we have troops have unfair trade practices... we are SUCKERS!!!

"Thank you, sir... may I have another?" should be our new motto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It was noth ther country anymore than South Korea is North Korea's country.
Bob
PS-- Tell the Hmong how they belonged to North Vietnam; the N. Viets.

---

OT-- this Sony computer has a jumping cursor that no one knows how to fix (that is how some truly odd typos come to be as I jdo not anglways fix all before printi {the previous words, plus the above sentence exist because it jumped as I wrote this}
Have any of you this problem?
How can it be fixed as the "pros" seem clueless

It is goinig nuts as I write this, with the worst be the d anwhole page being marke and lerased it I hit key not associated with deletion.

Help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fousto

I think all the bases in other countries except our territories should operate with a profit. South Korea should pay for our presence. If the base is not profitable then close it.
Also due to our economic condition all foreign aid should be suspended.

---

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

I'm not backing the staement made about profit just meerly stating Okinowa is a refueling station for our pacific fleet.we also help thier enomomy even if they don't want us there, they surely take our money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

---

Okinawans for the most part don't even want to be part of Japan. But the fact of the matter is that they are, and Japan wants the US on Okinawa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Okinawans for the most part don't even want to be part of Japan. But the fact of the matter is that they are, and Japan wants the US on Okinawa.

---

Really?

One of Yukio Hatoyama's reasons for being elected to Prime Minister (and indeed the whole DJP being elected to government) was the total removal of American forces from Japanese territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/wo...apan.html?_r=1
Japan’s Democrats pledged during the campaign to relocate the base off Okinawa or even out of Japan altogether.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-92795599.html
Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama broke a key campaign pledge Tuesday, telling the people on the southern island Okinawa that a U.S. Marine base would not be removed completely.

He apologized to Okinawans, saying some U.S. Marines must remain on Okinawa to provide deterrence and maintain the U.S.-Japan alliance. He was speaking after talks with local officials and residents, who reacted angrily to his comments.

Japan went to the polls with this as a key issue; the people spoke on this one, therefore the government has a mandate to do something about it.

Your statement is materially wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I agree with that. Not so much for profit, but at least the operating costs... especially in the case of certain (most) nations where it benefits them a LOT more than the American taxpayer, who is picking up the bill.

Before I'd pay a G.I. to walk the line in some desolate crap hole, protecting someone else's freedoms (or whatever made up term people want to dream up), I'd have that guy working on a bridge or road here... or if still in the military, I'd have him on the border with Mexico with his .50 cal trained on a Zeta across the border. People might have an issue with this, but I'd put him in Chicago or south central L.A., patrolling a drug infested area, which is (literally) being terrorized by street gangs.

It royally pisses me off when we send our troops overseas, at OUR EXPENSE, yet we have budget issues and more than enough problems right here to deal with. That DOES NOT mean that I'm for eliminating the military presence overseas. Nor do I fall for the (hyerbolic) argument that some like to use: anyone who isn't in favor of spending us into a military spending hole is an isolationist. I'm not an isolationist, nor am I a protectionist (in regard to trade). But I do not believe that we should be taken advantage of at every turn. And like I said, anyone who willingly bends over and takes it, while others get a virtual free ride, is a SUCKER! And looking at the amount we spend on the global military presence, where we spend it, the % of GDP that it represents and the fact that a lot of the countries where we have troops have unfair trade practices... we are SUCKERS!!!

"Thank you, sir... may I have another?" should be our new motto.

---

At least it's reassuring to know that domestically we are a highly evolved, tolerant, law abiding and peaceful Republic. :confused:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loca...cc4c002e0.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

At least it's reassuring to know that domestically we are a highly evolved, tolerant, law abiding and peaceful Republic. :confused:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loca...cc4c002e0.html

---

Sounds like the Taliban in Afghanistan:

Quote:

---

Two medical marijuana businesses in Billings were firebombed and tagged with graffiti reading “NOT IN OUR TOWN” over the last two days, rattling their owners and leaving others outraged in advance of a City Council meeting to decide whether to restrict the industry’s growth.

---

Especially if you add a couple of abortion clinics to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Okinawans don't really want American presence, and it doesn't operate with a profit. Pray tell, what is your justification for the base being there at all.

---

We won it.

I was against the return of Okinawa to Japan to begin with.