Why doesn't the concept of "Yankee, Go Home" doesn't sink in?

Great Debates
1

This is NOT another anti-American blah blah.
But, let’s face it, the Americans with their imperialistic gestures are everywhere.
Do the Chinese have their spy planes off the coast of Oregon?
Are the Russians listening to the US Military chatter off the coast of California?
Are the Indians trying to occupy Iraq?
What other nation besides US has military bases in over dozens of countries?
Why is US doing this? Is anybody inviting them? or are they doing it to merely “police the world?”
Maybe if the US did not place thousands of its arms forces all over Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, the WTC atrocity of 9/11 would have never happened.
In other words, why don’t the Americans get the message? Why don’t they learn from their movie "ET’? After all, ET went home…
Of course, we all know about America’s “NATIONAL INTEREST”, but other nations have “NATIONAL INTEREST” too. How come the Yankees have to be everywhere, while other 180 nations on this planet are not roaming around in Nebraska?

Why doesn’t the Yankee go home?

2

That is certainly how it reads.

3

Ah, but if we pulled back our bases and such, there would be complaints on our isolationist tendencies :rolleyes:

Look, having a military base from the lone superpower in the globe has advantages. I’m sure it adds to the regional economy. The hookers and strip joints alone must make a bundle :stuck_out_tongue: (no jokes about "trickle down economics though. That would be vulgar). We may give them money in exchange for the turf rights, and if we don’t I’m sure it gives them a nice little chip in terms of foriegn relations with us.

As far as listening to other countries chatter, better safe than sorry I suppose. There are a lot of countries with the bomb and it’s likely better to know what they are talking about than not.

And just as an F.Y.I., if you are trying not to write an “I hate America” thread, it’s best to leave the “imperialist” talk out of the thread. Comes across as a bit dickish.

4

You want the honest cynical answer? Because they can’t.

5

And when was the last time anyone in America paid any attention to any event that happened outside the lower 48?

6

[sub]Whoops, that was submitted too quickly. [/sub]

To continue, the message isn’t being heard because people are tuned out.

7

Idonno…why don’t you make us?

8

Well, a large percentage of the military is made up of Southerners - when they hear “Yankee Go Home” they will end up nodding in agreement. :smiley:

9

Let’s face it, have you seen Mrs. Yankee lately?

10

For what it might be worth, even in western Germany in the early 70s there was occasional “Ami raus” graffiti.

Nobody likes having a bunch of strangers snooping around and by extension having a significant impact on their lives. To some extent US intrusiveness is necessary and appropriate and often with the consent if not the encouragement of the local government – as in the case of the American Cold War presence in Europe. A perfectly good case can be made that the US needs to keep an eye on China now just as a perfectly good case could be made that the Soviets needed to keep an eye on the US – remember the occasional muttering about Soviet trawlers off the American coasts that did not seem to be doing much fishing.

It is, I am afraid, just part of big power world politics. As a practical matter the US is now in a position that the it can pretty well do what ever it thinks is appropriate to its interests. The argument is about just what is appropriate to advance and protect US interests. Some would say it is time to reassess just what is appropriate to US needs.

11

To the world at large outside the USA, Yankee is synonymous with American.

Within the USA, to a Southerner Yankee simply means Northerner.

In the North, the meaning of Yankee is limited to ‘New Englander’.

Within New England, a Yankee is not just anyone who lives in the New England states but a particular type: the old fashioned kind who lives out in the country.

If use of the word imperialist automatically makes an argument “anti-American” and therefore outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, what happens when America actually does establish an empire? The PNAC has that as its explicit goal, and they now dominate American foreign and military policy. If the word “imperialism” is automatically out of bounds, then no one will be able to objectively discuss what the PNAC crew is actually doing without being dismissed as a nutjob. (If you ask me, the PNAC boys are the real nutjobs.)

12

The same thing that happens now: nobody will take the person making the “empire” argument seriously.

13

Anyone spouting “American Imperialist” rhetoric, here is an assignment. I think you should read a book (or even just an online encyclopedia entry) about the British Empire circa 1890 or so, or the Belgian Congo, or French Algeria, or any number of actual European Imperialist instances.

It is the Europe which anti-Americans talk so fervently of that has been the true imperialist throughout history, and I do mean throughout history. Every single European nation that had the power to do so went into other, less-developed countries to RAPE their natural and human resources.

Go shove it.

And I’m a Democrat here. I just can’t stand the term “American Imperialism”

14

No, but they have spy subs off the coast of Japan and probably Hawaii. Rest assured if they had air bases within any sort of proximity to the US they would. Unfortunately for them, to get to the coast of Oregon they’d have to fly across the Pacific and negotiate around several US military bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, various small Pacific atolls, Guam, Hawaii and the Aleutians.

Now? I dunno, I’m not sure what sort of shape their navy is in anymore. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were listening to US Military chatter off the coast of New York, though.

They’ve got their hands full with Pakistan and Kashmir.

Did the Russians get to maintain their bases after the fall of the Soviet Union? I thought they got to hold on to some of the Black Sea ports, but I could be way off. I do know that they still have military bases in various central Asian countries, and I think they still hold onto the Kahm-Rahn naval base in Vietnam. They did just recently close their radar station in Cuba (listening to US military chatter off the coast of Florida) due to budget restraints.

The British maintain military bases in Cyprus, Canada, various small islands throughout the Atlantic, Belize, Brunei, Germany, etc.

France maintains several bases including in the Ivory Coast, French Guyana, and Djibouti. Those are the ones I know of off the top of my head.

Singapore maintains training facilities in Thailand, Australia, Taiwan and Brunei.

I’d be surprised if there weren’t several more countries with overseas bases.

Both. The US can’t open up a military base in another country without that country giving the OK. There are a few countries that would like us to remove our military presence (most notably Cuba), a few countries that toy with the idea every couple of years but decide against asking the US to leave (Japan, South Korea recently) but many other countries tend to start to raise hell when the US proposes base closures in their country (Germany).

Probably.

15

No, but they have their spy subs off the coast of Japan.

I certainly assume that they are. If they’re not, then their military is in much worse shape than it has been for decades.

No, Kashmir/Pakistan is enough of a problem. I guess we’re just lucky that none of our neighbors are uppity.

And I can’t believe that I’m having to defend my imperialistic country … but these examples are just stupid.

16

What local government? The ones that US constructs, maintains and supports? Are you saying when Allawi orders the attack on Fallujah, that is the “consent of Iraqis?” or is it the American puppet simply implementing the PNAC wishes.

Yeah. The ex-PNAC (Eisenhower and Co.) removed a democratically elected government in Iran and installed the puppet Shah. Then the next ex-PNAC (Nixon, Kissinger and Co.) gave their puppet all the toys he wanted from the land of Weapons-R-US. You call that “the consent of the Iranian people”? Those people could not even protest against their “puppet government” because the US-trained SAVAK would chop their head off. All those useless weapons that were paid by the country’s oil assets, could not do shit when US decided that it was a good idea for Saddam to attack Iran. And, of course, the PNAC champion himself (Rumsfeld) is seen shaking hands with Saddam, giving him all the toys he needed to whip the Shah’s replacement - the Ayatollah.

I am afraid, not only “US intrusiveness” is not necessary, it is not appropriate at all (WW II involvement being a possible exception).

What is wrong with US Foreign Policy taking a 15 year sabbatical from presence and meddling in other countries affairs such as the elections in Venezuela? Why don’t we give it a try? Let’s just try a little bit of isolationism for a while. Perhaps, we’ll learn that the world may respect us more if we try.

17

As you said yourself, the US military is in a lot of countries. Very few are run by the kind of puppet governments you’re talking about. Germany and South Korea (just to pull two out of the air) are hardly US puppets.

18

American hegemony insures peace. Our military might eliminates the need for large militaries in countries/regions where we have a military presence. European socialism and the European union itself would be impossible without the security provided by the US. Without the US, Japan would be forced to rearm and probably build nukes to counter China. Observe the India-China-Pakistan arms race as an example.

19

Aaaaarrgh, double negative! Back three spaces!!!
As long as George Steinbrenner is willing to spend all that dough, the threat of hegemony will hang over the American League.

20

Well, neo-imperialism, then. And the US also went into third world countries to exploit their resources. We just got the locals to do the dirty work for us, at least after the Spanish American War.