Who Are Our (US) Allies?

[BeBMan]

Dan, do you really think the US military would maintain large bases when they are not somehow useful? How would you quickly react to a crisis anywhere? Ok, you can send the Navy, but some countries can´t be reached in that way, and even if they can, this needs days, if not weeks.

You have a point that the concentration on (Central) European bases isn´t that important after the cold war, maybe you´ll some move more forward over time, but the existing bases are military infrastructure - to abandon them certainly doesn´t help the US influence overseas.

Edit: didn´t saw your last two posts....

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Where?

Reread the entire artile you linked. Pay special attention to the second paragraph and the final paragraph where he claims that the policies which many of our allies have had during the recent Iraq war make then nonallies (specifically he says only Britain, Japan, Australia, and eastern Europe are allies) he also calls for bases in neutral countries to be closed.

In fact, there is no real joint defense; there is no common enemy; and soon there should be no shared depot.

He makes the above claim based solely upon the recent Iraq situation.

With China and Russia claiming neutrality; with Britain, Australia, Japan, and much of Eastern Europe allied; and with India increasingly receptive to American peace-feelers

He does the same here.

So what conclusion am I supposed to reach other then he wants bases closed in countries which didn't support the recent war in Iraq? It seems pretty clear to me he wants to make a every mole hill into a either your with us or against us type moment. The truth is when lose bases like the ones we had in the Phillipines they are almost impossible to replace and so we should not start closing them just because some journalist thinks the locals haven't sucked up to Bush's policies enough.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We're continent sized so watch out! We'll squash you!

You also have less then 20 million people so you are no where near populous enough to act like a big power.

[DanS]

Dan, do you really think the US military would maintain large bases when they are not somehow useful? How would you quickly react to a crisis anywhere? Ok, you can send the Navy, but some countries can´t be reached in that way, and even if they can, this needs days, if not weeks.

Sure, the large European bases are useful. I never said they weren't. But this has to be weighed against the costs, broadly construed. There's always more than one way to skin these cats.

You have a point that the concentration on (Central) European bases isn´t that important after the cold war, maybe you´ll some move more forward over time, but the existing bases are military infrastructure - to abandon them certainly doesn´t help the US influence overseas.

Why would it impact on US influence in some place like Germany? We don't get our money's worth, if it does.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Sava
US Allies? NATO and the rest of the Democratic World. Following along with some dip**** politician's little war is NOT the definition of an Ally. I think Britain, France, and Germany are our strongest allies. In a TRUE emergency... when there IS a real IMMENENT threat (not manipulations and distortions) they would be with us. Unfortunately, war-profiteering and ideologically blind politicians have alienated our allies with their lies.

war profiteering????

you mean the french who didn't want saddam to fall because he owed them so much money? same with russia? which was at the heart of their oppostion.

you mean the french? who, if we would allow them a cut of the re-build profits, would drop all opposition against the war and suddenly sing a different tune?

the biggest guilty party of forming foreign policy based on potential profits are the french, russians and possibly the germans.

Those fools wouldn't know a true emergency if it bit them in the ass.

The country that is funding this war to a deficit (the US), somehow is the one getting rich off of it??...while the french and germans won't budge a muscle unless we cut them in for a portion of the re-building contracts and profits...

yet, the US is the money grabbing bad guy...where's rod serling when you need him...he'd love this ****.

[Nubclear]

I'm sure if Russia or China or someone was threatening to nuke us, France or Germany would not stand idle.

[Sava]

Originally posted by vee4473


war profiteering????

you mean the french who didn't want saddam to fall because he owed them so much money? same with russia? which was at the heart of their oppostion.

you mean the french? who, if we would allow them a cut of the re-build profits, would drop all opposition against the war and suddenly sing a different tune?

the biggest guilty party of forming foreign policy based on potential profits are the french, russians and possibly the germans.

Those fools wouldn't know a true emergency if it bit them in the ass.

The country that is funding this war to a deficit (the US), somehow is the one getting rich off of it??...while the french and germans won't budge a muscle unless we cut them in for a portion of the re-building contracts and profits...

yet, the US is the money grabbing bad guy...where's rod serling when you need him...he'd love this ****.

sure the French probably had business interests... but they are dwarfed compared to the fat blank check Cheney's Halliburton is getting.

[BeBMan]

Tass: noone had a problem towards the US after 9/11. It´s all about the Iraq hysteria ...

[vee4473]

keep snoring.

you obviously are very much asleep.

sweet dreams

[Sava]

Originally posted by vee4473
keep snoring.

you obviously are very much asleep.

sweet dreams

know who runs your government and where they get their money from... educate yourself...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by vee4473
Those fools wouldn't know a true emergency if it bit them in the ass.

I supported and even advicated the invasion of Iraq but it was never a "true emergency". It was and remains an optional war which had nothing to do with the war on terror. Except for Saddam paying pensions to the people in Hamas (BTW who oppose OBL but who are still nasty people) no one has ever found any links to terrorism; quite the opposite as a secular nationist dictators of the Baathists in both Syria and Iraq were/are hated by the fundimentalists.

The best case for the Iraq war wasn't that Iraq was a part of the war on terror or that it was a "true emergency" but that Saddam was a thorn in our side and that we should make an example out of him in order to send a message to the Irans, Syrias, and North Koreas of the world. Iraq made sense in a Machiavellian sense.

[Sava]

Oerdin is the most reasonable, intelligent, and logical pro-war poster.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
know who runs your government and where they get their money from... educate yourself...

Sava is a good guy but he listens to much of Pacifica radio and he gives to much attention to the conspiracy theories which the far left loony fringe comes up with.

[Sava]

perhaps

[Dinner]