Dismantling an empire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

I know if I ever got into a firefight with Eki on my side I would want him where I could see him, not behind me! :p

---

Do you remember the Monty Python skit where they would call out if anyone is hiding behind a shrub, and then a voice from behind the shrub would call out "nO!" after whch the shrub would blow up.

Eki is one of those behind those shrubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Again the analogy exists only in your faulty logic.

Although, Eki is correct back after WWII, how the ALLIES, not just the U.S. handled resistance. If armed resistance was met, the village was shelled, or the occupants of any and all villages were told that it would be s shelled if any resistance was met.
One of the facts of WWII that is rarely told.

As Russia was one of the ALLIES, Estonia knew they had no chance, period.

---

That was in June 1940. The Soviet Union wasn't one of the allies yet at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Jag I read "Fast Food Nation" It's repulsive what "some" people injest, and in mass quantities.
That slop should come with warning labels just like smokes (not that it would do any good)
Here in my neck of the woods (S.D. Ca.) were considered to live above the adverage in terms of health and diet.
If that is really true it's a sad commentary on the general health of us all inclusive!

---

I think some time later today, Bloomberg is going to have a report on the economic cost of obesity in the U.S. It's a disturbing trend... and a problem of our own making.

The desire to spend more than 4% of GDP on military expenditures, which represents 41% of the global total, is also a problem of our own making.

We have a good many other long term problems too, of course (where do U.S. kids rank globally in math and science now, something like 25th or 27th?). But as is demonstrated in this thread, as long as a problem is guarded by someone's sacred cow, it will likely never be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

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... Just the same 700 seems awfully high and so does 130 countries.

Do they include bases in the US in the 700?... 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.

---

The reference of “empire” was something I have heard before on a few occasions but it seems to be a more prevalent topic nowadays, than it was say 20 years ago; when 24-hour news sources (armed with their talking-heads) were in their infancy and the internet was yet something to be established in most societies around the globe.

The bases in geographical and operational objectives vary in size, of course. So without investing an extraordinary amount of time researching such precise detail, I should mention that I was basically concerned about, (and have been for quite some time actually) that we (the US) have appeared on occasion to overextend ourselves politically, as well as financially with our armed forces.

This is something that I have given some thought about since our success (with a low casualty rate) in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) – due to the fact that the US public would be more willing to embrace combat operations as a result. Which I believe is a dangerous manner of being complacent about our activities overseas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I'm sure there are places we could get rid of, and some we should not.... As for the Navy and the carriers.... 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...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.

---

Yes, I agree. I do want to see the US maintain some bases for the purpose of GPS technological-related capabilities. It’s the amount of ground troops and the absolute necessities of (foreign) land bases that I’m focused on. Particularly since such presence – quite understandably- doesn’t endorse favorable reactions. Hence the events of 9/11.

Subsequently I believe military expenditures would be better served in major US space operations and cyber fortifications. Which the Chinese and Taliban demonstrated to us, when our systems were intercepted/breached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

... 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... 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?...

---

Unfortunately, yes. And it doesn’t seem that our foreign and domestic policies is about to change anytime soon. Due to corporate welfare… or shall I say ‘warfare’.

I’m glad that someone here remembered Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex speech, since we’re closing in on the 50th anniversary of it; and its’ haunting message is timeless as ever. Something we could learn from… should learn from.

Defense Secretary Gates recently mentioned about cutting some of the pentagon fat of bureaucracy, such as too many commanders. However I think that is just a PR appeasement maneuver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AAReagles

This is something that I have given some thought about since our success (with a low casualty rate) in the Gulf War (Desert Storm) – due to the fact that the US public would be more willing to embrace combat operations as a result. Which I believe is a dangerous manner of being complacent about our activities overseas.

---

True. And I think the Gulf War was presented to the general public in a cleaner and more favorable way than seen by those who really were there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy...eligious_views

Quote:

---

In interviews before his execution, documented in American Terrorist, McVeigh stated he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day in the war and celebrated. But he said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners and to see carnage on the road leaving Kuwait City after U.S. troops routed the Iraqi army. In interviews following the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War. In 1998, while in prison, McVeigh wrote an essay that criticized US foreign policy towards Iraq as being hypocritical:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

True. And I think the Gulf War was presented to the general public in a cleaner and more favorable way than seen by those who really were there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy...eligious_views



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

---

The supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

The way the liberal press make a mountain out of a mole hill is just more liberal BS.
What played out in Kuwait/Iraq is the exact same thing that played out in wars since they started. The soldiers did a excellant job of making sure there was no army to fight back.
They should be praised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

The way the liberal press make a mountain out of a mole hill is just more liberal BS.
What played out in Kuwait/Iraq is the exact same thing that played out in wars since they started. The soldiers did a excellant job of making sure there was no army to fight back.
They should be praised.

---

yup...the war was on, one that the Iraqi army started. Way I see it, it is the way things happen when you pick a fight you cannot win. One of the most scary and obvious outcomes to everyone except that idiot who was running Iraq at the time.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The supposed highway of death is what you do in a war, you kill the enemy army.

---

So is executing surrendered prisoners, it's just forbidden in the Geneva Convention, which is a bitch.

There was no need to kill fleeing Iraqis on their way from Kuwait to Iraq, because the purpose of the war was just that, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and that was exactly what they were doing.

A retreating army is still an army no matter how disorganized they appear to be. You do not give them a chance to regroup General Eki. Back to buck private.
Now can we get back to the topic of this thread?

Slight OT. But it's curious how 'Empire' has now become a dirty word. Back in the days of the British Empire it was seen as being, well not universally a good thing, but not com-pletely evil like it is now.

I wonder, has it been since the collapse of the British Empire and that we now learn to regret that period of our history, or more simply, since Star Wars?!