I dunno, there’s a myriad of reason for them to close, from both sides. If both countries enjoy a mutual advantage from the base, why should you care? If you really think that Germany or Japan is part of an **American Empire ** because of a few military bases you might want to brush up on your international politics…
I ordinarily wouldn’t. It’s when the US starts invading countries in order , amongst other reasons, to establish bases there, that it bothers me.
Not “part of” as much as “vassals to”, although it looks like Germany is slowly swinging away from this.
Look, can I just get a simple yes-no straight answer from you, Shodan, others:
Does American imperialism exist in the world today?
No.
And before you ask understand a negative can’t be proven. The onus is on you to prove it does exist. And proof involves more than “Because I think it does.” I haven’t seen anything close to a cogent argument proving it exists. The best you’ve offered are bases in Europe, Asia and some *.stan nations. All of whom invited the US to set up bases. Hardly Imperialism. That would be more along the lines of just being against them because you don’t like American influence anywhere.
Now then, care to address the part where you were questioning why Europe didn’t have bases in the US? Care to offer an argument for why they should have a few here? I know I knida eviscerated you on that point, but I’d still like to know what you can spew about it.
Ah, I get it now. When you do smething, it’s brilliant. When anyone you don’t like does the very same thing, it’s a monkey dance.
BTW, had I called you a monkey, would you have whipped out the “racist” card? Nah, don’t bother lyin…er, answering that.
Can I jump in here? I’m gonna surprise you Duffer, and agree with you (I think I am). Maybe it’s time for a short history lesson. There was a big fight (World War 2). Afterwards, there was a very nervous period of time. The USSR started flexing its muscles, making a lot of neighboring countries very nervous. The maniac Stalin was still in power, every bit as evil as Hitler had been. The U.S. and the countiies of western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to counter the Soviet threat (which was very real). The USA built or leased (unimportant which it was) in these treaty countries, with their permission. We (the U.S.) kept a very large presence in these countries, so tha IF the USSR attacked, they would meet a very very large force of air, armor, and infantry. We were also backed up by a fully functional nuclear arsenal, in case the USSR decided to really get crazy. We were not there to build an empire. We were there, again at the invitation of the hosting countries, to keep the Soviets from attacking. Did our presence stop aggression? Maybe. We’ll never know for sure. All we can say is, the USSR never attacked France, England, West Germany, or anywhere else we had bases and people. They did, however, send tanks into “their” satellite countries such as Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland. We can’t prove a negative (why they didn’t invade “our guys”), but there is always the chance that we did make the difference. AND ONE MORE TIME, this was not empire or colonization. We were there at these countries’ invitation.
There are/were no European bases in the U.S. mainly because we did not need them. We, for years, were THE superpower. We had, through brinkmanship and dipomacy (and threatening), told the USSR that we were just as crazy as they thought they were, and any direct move against us would bring on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). They would have been obliterated (literally).
I’d say invasion of non-threatening countries and a desire to extend a “Pax Americana” to the rest of the world equates to imperialism now. Whatever the historic roots for US foreign bases, they now serve as forward bases for the kind of ideology-spreading that folks like the PNAC have been planning for years.
Now before anyone goes off half-cocked, understand that imperialism is not the same as colonialism, although the American Empire includes bits of that. The American Empire is one of influence and military coercion. And it’s existed for centuries. Ask the Hawaiins, Philipinos or Central Americans.
Nowadays, ask the Iraqis.
Heck, search on “American Empire” on amazon, ignore the Harry Turtledove entries, and you’ll see it’s not an idea that’s unique to one crazy South African, as you seem to think. And note that for every Chomsky using the expression, there’s a conservative like Buchanan, or whatever the hell Niall Ferguson is.
Note, this isn’t me arguing from authority, just me pointing out that the idea isn’t as baseless as you’d like me to think it is.
I wouldn’t offer an argument that they should, as I never said they should. I asked why they didn’t. And I’d offer that it’s because they don’t need them there. Because it’s not their country, and they’re not a militaristic empire that needs to “project force” halfway around the globe.
Depends what you mean by “the very same thing”, monkeyboy
Aaw, are we just so stung by being even momentarily thought of as a racist? There, there, want me to kiss the boo-boo better?’
Now dance, monkeyboy, dance…
Well, shit. Good thing you never brought it up douchestick. I also argued why foreign countries wouldn’t need to have bases in the US, but you missed the part about the US having a military equipped and funded to not need another country to have bases here. We can agree on that, I guess.
Here’s the thing. You have no concept of history. Military or otherwise. Steve, as much as we’ve butted horns in the past, and future I’m sure, can see the reason for bases in Europe. (He probably said it much better than me.)
Have you ever heard of World War One? Funny thing happened at the end of that war. The victor’s were emboldened in the victory and sent the Imperialists home. They had it covered. The German’s were defeated and there was no chance they could ever pose a threat now that they knew how to handle the threats.
Remeber what WWI was called? The War to End All Wars.
[Dr Phil] How’s that working out for ya?[/Dr Phil]
I’d like to fast-forward to WWII, but I’d be remiss in not mentioning a few years in between.
This involves looking at another map or three. Go ahead and grab some from Google. You’re knowledgeable enough to find them, I’ll give you a few minutes. Just get some from 1919-1934. You can expand it a few years before and after, I’ll wait. Do it in another window, as you’ll soon need to use the search again.
OK, got them? Let’s continue.
See how after WWI borders and countries kept changing seemingly by the hour? The borders you want to pay attention to are the ones shared by Germany. The country that lost WWI. Notice how often they change in that decade after defeat?
Again, Germany was smacked down in the largest war in history at that point, yet with allied nations right on it’s doorstep couldn’t keep it from making a bit of a ruckus a few years later.
But again, let’s look back before blazing forward on a march through your insipid mind.
Open that Google window again. Search backward every 5 years for maps of Europe starting at 1925. Notice how new countries appear every search? Notice the insability? Well, in fairness, we’re looking at stability from today’s standards, but the German’s as we know them today were long-time allies between their kingdoms.
Belgium, France, England, etc were independant nations with strong militaries, but they didn’t always play well together. Germany in WWI saw basically siblings that would rather fight among themselves than fight Germany. So Germany took advantage. And I apologize for historical fact, but without the US entering the war (when Woodrow Wilson finally decided the US would abandon neutrality and pressure Congress) Germany had a very good if not certain chance of victory.
Know what happened after the WWI victory? The US left Europe.
Do I need to tell you why there was a WWI and WWII?
To be honest to our European friends, and many here in the US, one thing I think we can agree on is the US being a major influence in the stabalization of Western Europe. We din’t make them a colony nor territory. (You lost the Imperialism right there.) If you think Imperialism still applies, explain the Marshall Plan. We “spent” over a half-million lives and billions of dollars on rebuilding Europe. Not only our allies’ infrastructure, but that of our enemies.
How’s Dresden looking these days? I know Dresden is a major sticking point for your ilk. How about Berlin? Or Tokyo? Christ, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are doing pretty damn well these days. And even if you want to deny it, there have been billions invested in those cities to get them built up. You see, however bad you want to portray the US, even the cities we bomb in a time of full out war we do everything we can to get them back on their feet when it’s over. The majority, left and right, want to help people out.
Look beyond politics you read in your daily rags, Americans on a whole want to help those in need. Take a look at humanitarian aid. We can be confusing at times. It may seem as we hand a sandwich to the guy we shoot, but you have to get beyond that.
It may seem Imperialistic, and it probably pisses you off since we get all the ink. Understandable. I can see how South Africa doing good things being overshadowed by the US can be frustrating. I can’t change that. Nor any other American. You can. Do more for the world in general. Impossible, you say? Yes, it probably is. SA just doesn’t have the econimic resources nor cash to be a direct rival. It doesn’t mean SA doesn’t have power in the world. You do.
What you have to learn is the political/military reasons the US was ever in Europe in the first place. The reasons we were there for decades. The reason we’re still there. The reason we’re moving some bases out to other areas.
After 50 years it’s been shown how a US base or two can help keep the peace. Peace based on a bully in the midst? The populace for the most part hasn’t had a problem with it.
Germany, Japan and Italy seem to have gotten by alright. France, England and Poland seem to be getting by as well.
They’ve all gotten by well enough to publicly and vehemently decry the US while raking in cash from exports and base subsidies.
Maybe we should abandon Imperialism and leave the centuries-old bickering nation’s to resume the fighting? I have no problem seeming to be Imperialistic. We don’t control anything in Europe or Asia, but the peace seems to be holding up. Political rhetoric and debate aren’t a danger. Keeping silent out of fear is. That’s why the US can withstand the vitriol that is standard in political debate these days. We know the nation is strong enough to withstand it.
I ask you again, how are we Imperialistic?
duffer?
Could we please get back to the issue of what a shitstain Der Trish is?
He’s breaking forum rules wishing death on someone, and he does it multiple times.
We have actual active duty military that post here regularly, and he’s as good as telling them to their face that he hopes they are killed in as brutal a way as possible.
There are a million of us veterans on here and he’s insulting us as and our service as well.
He backpedals but doesn’t apologize, and then flits about and spreads his bile freely all over the board.
That rally bothers me too. I’ve been staying away from that, because I don’t see any way to counter the “you all suck and should die” argument. There are places where the secret police would “disappear” him for it. It’s OK to say “the US is wrong”, or “anyone who (whatever) is a dummy”, even “the fiendish overlords and minions of the (whatever administration) Dark Side are bad people”, but “you need to die” is too much.
You accused me of being a one-trick pony. I asked for proof of me being one. All you’ve managed to do is provide proof that you are, and that trick is total insanity. Seek help.
Thanks for a well-thought out and clearly heartfelt post. I agree with you on the historical underpinnings of the current Pax Americana, you’ll get no argument from me about last century’s geopolitical situation. But that isn’t my point, so that’s so much wasted pixel space. My point is twofold - firstly, America is currently engaging in foreign actions to serve its own agenda (ref. PNAC), and secondly, that agenda is primarily about US economic interests, not the wellfare of the rest of the world. It benefited the US to have peace in Western Europe and Japan, and lo! there is peace in Western Europe and Japan.
What you ignore is that when it benefits the US to overthrow existing governments that are not militarily a threat, only economicaly, it also has no problem doing that - the “banana republics” created by United Fruit, the whole restoring the Shah of Iran debacle, current Iraq.
So while the American foreign influence is good for some, it worsens things for a whole lot of others. And the main motivation in either case is US economic interests. That seems pretty imperialistic to me. I mean, Rome greatly civilised and pacifies Gaul and the Med, that didn’t make it any less of an empire.
“Oh no, arguing semantics with this one didn’t work. I’m just going to keep calling him insane and hope it sticks”
Actually, I proved that you’re incredibly wrong with your pretended definition of mercenary. What hasn’t worked is actually educating you to the facts. Evidently duffer’s come to that conclusion and has written you off for the loon you are. I’ll follow his example, especially after reading your ridiculous posting just above.
Self defence? Surely the only people commiting acts of self defence are the Iraqis? Yes the American service people are there under orders but invasion can not be called self defence.
I feel very sorry for the US, British, Aus etc troops in Iraq but to say they are acting in self defence is to reinvent the meaning of the term.
Years from now the war in Iraq will be seen to be just as futile as the war in Veitnam. The only difference is the “War on Terror” or more paticularly invading Iraq was a masterful move in increasing terror. Well done Mr Bush.
As my link showed, you haven’t proved anything other than how completely deluded you are. Cites and examples vs monkeyboy in the corner saying “I really showed him good, uh-huh.” You are pathetic.
Right, duffer did it (you say), now the trained monkey is free to follow suit. Well, jump to it, time to rattle that tin cup.
I think this post is an excellent example of the one-trick you are filling this thread with. He doesn’t agree with you. You have attacked him repeatedly, waving aside his arguments, and simply called him crazy. Again and again.
The only one arguing against MrDibble with honesty is kidchameleon.
Seriously, I’ve been watching this thread since my participation and you haven’t made a single point. You’ve just shrieked and called names. That makes your position look weak, beyond anything that your opponents might do.
Lear how to read, jsgoddess. I was asking that poster what he meant by “justified killing being just as bad.”
Er, “Learn how to read.”