is an ACist describing an infusion of capital as a bribe or threat? lollerskates.

So saved one countries ass, left when asked. Provided security for the next countries ass felt severely threatened and wanted us to be there. The last country signed a contract. Not going too well here.

I was simply answering a question about countries we been asked to leave. When we "saved the Philippines ass" in WWII we were occupying the place by force.

ikestoys sentiment is that of most empires when they are on the decline. Hoping that memories of the good old days can block out the future uselessness.

Not sure what you are getting at here. The U.S. is different than other past empires that collapsed because the U.S. does not actually try to take over the world. Past empires expanded and kept expanding and tried to keep control of 100% of the conquered territory until they eventually reached a breaking point and just collapsed.

While the U.S. maintains bases that help us project our force anywhere in the world on a moments notice, the U.S. is not trying to expand or conquer new territory similar to the Romans, British, etc... that eventually just stretched themselves too thin. When the U.S. goes to war, it does not take that country and try to convert it into it's own territory. Instead, it tries to rebuild the country and then leave when a more friendly government is able to run things on their own, leaving only a base or 2 behind if anything.

Could the bases be run more efficiently? I'm sure they can, just like any other government program.

Just because the empire is different from past empires does not make it no longer an issue. We use force (military, political, economic) to get other nations to bend to our will for our own self-interest (and more than occasionally, theirs as well). The fact that we don't annex the territory is not a pass. One could even argue that annexing the territory makes it that much harder to do the exploitation. Think Central America during much of the 20th century. Let the CIA-supported thugs run the ****holes and deal with the local populace while American corporations reap the profits. America, **** yeah.

people often say we need bases overseas to [/quote]protect overseas interests[/quote]

what exactly are they referring to? what kind of legitimate interests can a country have that require such a vast web of military to protect them? and again, do other countries, which don't have our empire, find themselves unable to pursue overseas interest?

From what I'm reading, total defense spending appears to be right at 1 trillion per year. It is worth pointing out that even with our huge GDP, the military runs at better than 4% of it, and the closest country in that catagory runs at a little better than 2%.

How about as a percentage of total budget? 20% for military, 21% for medicare, 21% for social security. Considering the secrecy of our DOD, I even have to disclaim that this is what we KNOW about. Anybody remember the $2 trillion missing money several years back? Was that ever resolved?

How about in relation to military spending in other countries. As far as I know, it's still true that we spend more money than every other country put together. Correct this if it's wrong.

I think it's fair to say that we -might- be able to save some money here.

Most estimates I have read puts the total US defence spending at a little bit under half of the Global defence total. Depends a little bit on how you do currency conversions and such. It should also be noted that several other "big players" such as Russia and China have massive conscript forces and I am not so sure that the "hidden costs" of keeping large numbers of citizens out of other productive activities are factored in.

Now, this beeing said I agree that you guys could reduce defence spending. (And probably should, though that's really none of my buisness.)

It should also be noted that a substantial part of the non-US military forces of the world belong to other NATO countries that can probably be counted on to AT WORST remain neutral in any realistic conflict.

However I don't think overseas basing makes that much difference in cost given a set level of cababilty. If you really want to cut costs you need to either reduce numbers or quality.

Just my 2c
/Bjorn

There may have been an anti american rally on the business trip you took.
I'm sorry on your one trip you had to see that.
if you were there more often you'd see it differently.

protect overseas interests[/quote]

what exactly are they referring to? what kind of legitimate interests can a country have that require such a vast web of military to protect them? and again, do other countries, which don't have our empire, find themselves unable to pursue overseas interest?[/QUOTE]

empire huh

Two trillion dollars missing? Yeah I read about it at two websites: www.outrageousconspiracytheroies.com and www.exaggerations.com


The entire Federal budget in 2008 was only 2.9 trillion.

The two trillion dollars missing covers several decades, not a single year.

Three websites, actually.

Googlestuff.com



But if you're looking for conspiracy theories, there's one imbedded in the story:

good thread bump

This is the crux, yet it is always glossed over. Exactly what interests of "ours" are being protected? What can you come up with?

I'll wager the interests are narrow, private ones, not of benefit to the country as a whole.

random scenario:
N. Korea takes over KIA, Hyundai, and Samsung.
US DoD, maybe part of of Silicon Valley, craps its pants.
Rest of business world LOL's.

You're on the right track.

The Grand Macro Strategy of the United States military is to maintain the worlds most dominate Navy and at the same time prevent any other Nation from building a large Navy. He who controls the Oceans controls the world. And it's not because you can launch an attack anywhere you want, it's because you have the ability to shut down shipping lanes. The United States can literally shut down all trade by Sea from any Nation.


It is of course much more expensive to trade by airplane than ship. Part of the apparently irrational wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually serve a very useful purpose above and beyond the oil. The great threat Sadaam Hussein posed was his dream to reunite the Middle East into a modern Ottoman Empire. A unified Middle East would eventually have the resources to build a massive Navy and challenge U.S. naval dominance.


The biggest threat currently is Russia. I expect U.S. macro policy to switch to containing Russian expansion. Russia's goal is to regain the lost territories of the Soviet Union. If this seems absurd remember that not too long ago they invaded Georgia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war






In the next 20 years expect Russian to continue probing their former satellite territories and the U.S. doing everything they can to contain. Both sides will never even consider using nukes. But the U.S has a "lesser nuke" option that the Russians lack, shutting down their shipping lanes.


To learn more you can read this book about the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_100_Years

Wat.

Hey, I live and work on one of those overseas bases. Specifically Aviano Air Base in Italy, which is almost completely run by the U.S. Air Force. The main military benefit that I can see is that it puts us in position to have a global presence whenever we need to. When the Libyan air war was going on, we already had two F-15 squadrons based here that can easily fly missions to Libya and back. And more squadrons flew in from U.S. bases and used this base to fly their sorties from. We had the whole infrastructure to support the planes and personnel already here, so we were ready to go almost instantly. And thanks to major Air Force bases in Europe, South Korea, and Japan, we're ready to do the same pretty much anywhere else where our political leaders are likely to send us anytime soon.

If we didn't have those bases, we would have had to get permission from some allied country, move planes and personnel temporarily to that country's base, and only then conduct operations, which we'd only be able to do as long as that country let us. I'm not saying you can't fight a war that way. But it's a much trickier way to go about it.

Anyway, that seems to be the main point of having us here. It obviously costs a lot of money, and whether or not it's worth it is a fair question. But we're definitely not here to occupy Italy or anything. We're here because it provides tremendous military convenience to us.

Can't Russian anti-ship ballistic missiles sink every ship we have anywhere in the world almost trivially easily? And as of right now ships have no defenses against ballistic missiles.

I would add it allows the US to dispute the opinions of others, at will. I am not talking about atrocities, but merely differences of opinion or policy. All the while using the loudest braggadocio about freedom and democracy. The interesting part about that is from outside its the activity of a tyrannical dictator.

Look at the 2012 campaign, not about improvement to society but a scorched earth policy. History has records of what happens to those empires.

For this global presence, we have a military budget close to half of the rest of the world put together. Add to that the periodic slaughter of our young people, how is that worth it? Loads of countries do just fine without a military archipelago.

The powerful benefit from the empire, common people pay the price.

I don't think I'll respond to a post that uses the words "periodic slaughter of our young people," as I doubt that you're really all that interested in having an honest debate with me about anything.

Don't think it's been mentioned but the US bases in Japan are there due to treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...ates_and_Japan

Plus the Japanese government does pay for this (of course it probably costs more then this to maintain those bases.)

I'm not really for these worldwide bases but it does beg the question: Why doesn't the US get some of these host nations to pay to defend them? It would greatly defer the costs.