700 military bases in over 130 countries. Why?

[Cascadian]

I just discovered yesterday that the United States have that many of it's Armed Forces spread all around the Earth. How is that supposed to protect us? No wonder most people in this world see us as an "Empire". Is it any wonder the U.S. Armed Forces are spread thin especially in Iraq? Don't we really have anybody protecting our borders?

I will say it before and I will say it again, the United States does not need to have it's military on nearly every country on the planet. In fact, the U.S. does need to be in NATO (Why do we still have NATO anyway? The Cold War is over!) or any alliances especially with our obviously biased attitude in the Middle East. America should be non-aligned and being non-aligned IS NOT being isolationist. Our primary goal for the Armed Forces should be to protect our borders from any potential attacks and that's it. Instead we stick our noses in business that should not concern us. The has no right to go into any country we want and throw our weight around. Why do you suppose many people hate us?

John

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Becuase we are an Empire, a reluctant Empire

but one nonetheless

[IndianaGreen]

3. We are an eager empire, not a reluctant one!

We need our military might to keep in power the elites in other countries that support our elites, and that assist us in exploiting global resources while keeping the natives under our jackboots.

[malikstein]

8. The Global Dominance Group

http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf

This faction within the US establishment pursues a policy of US world hegemony through both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

[Cascadian]

12. And those are the ones that must go away,

We have got to get rid of these guys. Plain and simple and regardless if they are Republican or Democrat.



John

[Tellurian]

21. Reading your link, vindicates the Hillary Corporatist DU theme..

The control lies entirely within the Bush administration, their appointments, cronys and key appointments within the defense industry. There was NO cover-up by the Clintons. The Clintons forestalled their rise to power by 8 yrs. Not a quantum leap figuring out why the NeoCons wanted the Clintons gone in 92'and dread their return in 09'.. The link posted by malikstein answers every question. Who are the NeoCons, why they knew 9/11 is inevitable, how many countries warned the Bush Administration of the 9/11 attack... Why we're in Iraq, who's next,...It's all there..

Go Hillary!

[Tellurian]

22. It really doesn't. It strictly Republican ALL the Way!

I read the 26 pages. You must have skimmed, if you think that..eh?

[malikstein]

29. You failed to notice

that the same folks who fund the Democratic Party also fund the Republicans. Take Rupert Murdoch, for example, one of Hillary Clinton's main backers in her senatorial race. You also failed to notice that the main Democratic presidential contenders all support continued occupation of Iraq, starting with Hillary Clinton.

One point that you would not know: I contacted the lead author of the Global Dominance article and asked why Democratic global dominance geo-strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski is not on his list. After some discussion, he agreed that Zbig should be their.

Just a few examples from the six-page list of criminals at the end of the article:

James Schlesinger - served in cabinet posts under Nixon, Ford and Carter
Jamie Gorelick - Deputy Attorney General of the United States during the Clinton administration
Thomas Dine - defense and foreign policy advisor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, also worked for Edmund Muskie
Bobby Ray Inman - known publicly as President Bill Clinton's first choice to succeed Les Aspin as Secretary of Defense in 1993

All the above are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a bi-partisan think tank dedicated to US global dominance.

Here are a few prominent members, whose names you will recognize:

Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Vernon Jordan
George Soros
Jimmy Carter
Warren Christopher
Lawrence Eagleburger (served under Carter)
Thomas Friedman
Paul R. Krugman
Bill Clinton
John Kerry

The CFR, as you will note if you search diligently in the criminals list, is heavily cross pollinated with organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century and AIPAC.

Well, you might say, "That's just guilt by association." So it might seem. However, as the Global Dominance article points out, the establishment, like any other social class is rife with shifting factions and power alignments. The interpenetration of groups such as CFR, AEI, PNAC and AIPAC, is, under those conditions, totally lawful. The factions must meet to hash out differences and create alliances if they hope to get their policies carried out.

So, despite your wish that the world be otherwise, the Democratic Party leadership is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US establishment, whose general outlook is Global US Dominance. That's a polite was of saying empire, as Brzezinski pointed out in his 1997 book, "The Grandchess Board". That's the book where he laid out the strategy for global dominance that the Bush administration is currently making a botch of. Now, if we get a Democratic president in 2008, say Hillary Clinton, we can rest assured that she will clean house and get back on the right path to empire.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. If we were willing you'd have the elite serving

and a draft, in a system similar to the British Regimental System... no we are not willing

[AJ9000]

23. The United States became a quasi-empire after the fall of the Soviet Union

We had military bases spread around the world after World War II which were kept in place in part to check Soviet aggression, and began building more for supposedly the same reason. After the Soviet Union as such ceased to be, the United States became a quasi empire of military bases.

With the "election" of * and the Cabinet of neoconservatives he brought in, combined with the 911 attacks, the United States has embarked on an overt plan of Empire (having been called benevolent global hegemony by neoconservatives) under the pretense of fighting terrorism, with the first target being Iraq. That plan began to crash shortly after takeoff.

Much more frightening to me is the systematic destruction of constitutionally limited governance and individual rights now taking place within the United States domestically.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Listening stations, satellite tracking stations. Not combat troops. nt

[shance]

14. What are 'listening stations'?

Sounds intrusive to say the least.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Just listening to what's being broadcast by various wavelengths.

For example, most communications with submarines are very long wave. We try and pick up all varieties of communications.

There is an island, not far off Istanbul, that is solid antennas.

[IndianaGreen]

4. There is the No Bases international coalition against foreign bases

AN ANTI-BASES NETWORK FINDS ITS BASE

BY Herbert Docena 14 March 2007 16/03/2007

The consolidation of an international network for the abolition of foreign military bases marks an important advance for the global peace and justice movement.

On the perimeter fence of the Eloy Alfaro air base in Manta, Ecuador hangs a sign, “Warning: Military Base. No Trespassing.” Since 1999, the base has been used as a “forward operating location” by the US military – just one of over 737 US military installations currently scattered in over 100 countries around the world.

On March 9, about 500 visitors showed up at the base’s main gate. One of them walks up to the fence and pastes a bright blue and red sticker saying “No Bases!” on the warning sign, a broken rifle forming the diagonal line with the letter “o” to make the universal sign of prohibition.

It is a small, symbolic act of trespassing for a newly formed international network with a big goal: the closure of all such military bases worldwide. But with the successful convening of a conference that launched the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases (No Bases) in Quito and Manta, Ecuador from March 5 to 9, 2007, that goal has become a little closer to reality.

Perhaps the largest gathering against military bases in history, the conference drew over 400 grassroots and community-based activists who are at the forefront of local struggles from as far away as Okinawa, Sardinia, Vieques, Pyongtaek, Hawaii, and dozens of other places from more than 40 countries. There were environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, war resisters, farmers, workers, students, parliamentarians, and other activists from social movements, human rights groups, faith-based organizations, and various regional and global networks and coalitions.

http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=coberturaleermas&idioma=en&id=67

[Solo_in_MD]

5. There are a lot of bases that do not fit what you are thinking

Weather detachments, research facilites, National Guard armories that have not been used since the 50s, and old Nike sites. The DoD is agressively downsizing and has listed a lot of them for closure and/or consoidation (BRAC). Those include Barbers Point, Hawaii and Walter Reed.

[Solon]

6. Those are what remains after the cold war...

Some, as others mentioned, are old radar and weather stations, which are, by and large, obsolete due to new technology, but still exist for some reason. Others are placed in certain nations to "defend" those nations against a non-existent threat, the Soviet Union, a classic example of this is Germany.

In other cases, its treaty obligations, like in Japan, where the U.S. is charged for its defense, and in a case like that, we have permanent bases there. We also have forward bases in many nations that are near conflict areas or strategic resources, such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia(closed at the behest of Osama Bin Laden), Turkey, etc.

These are listings of bases BEFORE the start of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Also, I'm not advocating that this is a good thing, just stating some of the reasons why we have bases in so many different nations.

To be honest, I agree with you in principle, but I would go a step further, we should voluntarily give up Superpower status, simply put, its too expensive, as was shown in the Soviet Union, the U.S. would follow. I would prefer a lowering of status that DIDN'T involve chaos or worse. We should pull out of NATO, the Europeans can reform it into a EU armed forces if they wish, and cut our military budget drastically, to help pay for domestic programs, and restrict our armed forces to defensive purposes only, with a limited amount under command of U.N. peacekeepers for such purposes as the Security Council finds appropriate.

[Greyhound]

7. It takes a lot of sinkholes to hide over a half trillion dollars every year.

Think about how hard it is for drug lords to hide a couple hundred million.

Obviously it doesn't get to the servicewo/men, and there are only so many star wars/osprey projects to hide it behind. We have to prop up most of our "allies" around the world so that their own people can't drag them out in the streets and hang them from the palace gates.

The sums of money we are talking about are really incomprehensible to the human mind, most people have never actually seen a million of anything, let alone six hundred forty thousand thousand thousand things (and that's just the official number).

[donsu]

9. yes

nt

[LiberalFighter]

10. What happened to the Roman Empire?

[Cascadian]

11. You know what happened?

Their army was spread out thin, the government became bankrupt and corrupt, and the populace became apathetic and did not care anymore. Sound familiar?


John

[LiberalFighter]

13. Who would be the Et tu Brute for Bushwad? Rove? Cheney? Gonzales?

[Blue_Tires]

15. because as long as there has been conflict

there has been insane profits for those people that know how to work both sides of the war machine...no governments buying high-tech planes/tanks/weaponry, etc, no cashflow...

[MissMarple]

16. Check out "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson.

Scary stuff.

[sandnsea]

18. It protects the CORPORATIONS

Wherever we have a corporation that is extracting somebody else's resources, we'll have a military base.

[AnOhioan]

19. Hey, being imperialistic requires overseas bases..

:sarcasm:

[AZBlue]

20. And no one to help out when a hurricane "attacks" us?!

Yeah, that makes so much sense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Actually there was plenty of help

but it was not publized

From memory here are some of the countries that sent help

Canada
Mexico
The Netherlands
The UK
France
Israel
SA offered money as well as plenty of arab countries
Venezuela offered help, was refused, as well as Cuba.

That is from memory

And there were quite a bit of hoops to get the initial S&R teams in

[Cascadian]

32. You know this country is in trouble when Mexico sends troops here.....

for assisting in aiding Katrina victims.

You know this country is in trouble when public schools hire European teachers to instruct in it's classes.

You know this country is in trouble when Anti-Americanism is at fever pitch worldwide.

You know this country is in trouble when it's number one priority is the catering to the military-industrial complex and not the people.

You know this country is in trouble when are the treasury has money stored in Chinese banks.


Should I continue?


John

[leftofthedial]

24. $$$$$$$, $$$$$$ and more $$$$$$$

Capitalism needs artificial influxes of "free" resources (things like clean air it can make dirty, clean water it can pollute, labor it can enslave, soldiers it can kill, tax money it can convert into useless weapons, etc.) in order to survive for more than a few seconds.

[area51]

27. "700 military bases in over 130 countries. Why?"

Well, gotta do something w/our tax dollars to avoid spending them wisely on pro-life, single-payer, universal healthcare, or a social safety net like the civilized countries have. </sarcasm>

[win_in_06]

28. You mentioned NATO

NATO's mission has changed since the cold war. Member countries train together and respond to wars/crises such as the Pakistan earthquake, training Iraqi forces and Afghanistan. The question you have to ask is, "Is it in our national interest to support NATO, maintain a military alliance and to deter agression in Europe and elsewhere?"

Russia is no angel, and China increases it's military budget by over 15% every year. There are agressor nations out there. Do we need to maintain a defensive posture abroad?

If the answer is no, then we should certanily withdraw.

[Cascadian]

30. NATO's only true mission was to act as a counterbalance...

to the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and why should NATO? Especially now that NATO has gone beyond the North Atlantic in it's mission. I will also go so far to say that maybe America should pull out of Europe. There is no more Soviet threat. You know George Washington once said it would be bad for America to join alliances. Then again,today's leaders are doing just about everything that went against what the founding fathers had in mind for this republic. America should be militarily non-aligned and this does not mean isolationism. Do I think people in the world would be less anti-American if we went with such a policy. Why yes? I believe they would back down from it and al-Qaeda would not be so appealing to them. Al-Qaeda would not be so appealling if we emphasized economic development and humanitarian endeavors instead of military ones.

John

[ieoeja]

31. Given our military record before and after the end of WW-II, I'd say, "no".

Before the end of World War II the United States was unbeaten in major wars. We have lost two of the three protracted wars we have fought since then.

What changed? Before WW-II we had no peacetime military to speak of. When WW-II erupted Detroit stopped making automobiles and started making tanks. American citizens left their jobs and went to war. We did not fight those wars with just our military. The entire country fought those wars.

Since WW-II we have maintained a massive military. America doesn't fight wars anymore. We pay the guys and gals in uniform to fight the wars for us. Our gov't can start a war anytime it feels like without inconveniencing the rest of us. Which has made it all too easy for our gov't to screw up.

This historical evidence suggests the best thing we could do for national security is to bring out military down to peacetime levels instead of remaining on a permanent war footing. We would then only fight wars we had to win. And we would fight them as a unified country.

[win_in_06]

33. Good point. Maybe under your model we would beat our plowshares

into swords only when necessary, kick ass quickly, and go back to plowsharing.