Why are American taxpayers defending wealthy countries?

[A2K78]

- The Cold War over, yet years after american troops continue to occupy various parts of europe for no obvious reason.

- Despite the presence of North Korea, countries like Japan and South Korea are not only technologically advanced countries, but can develope very advanced weapons.


So what does all of these countrie/regions have in common? For starters they are wealthy, have big economies and have very capable militaries, so the question is why is the typical american taxpayer defending these types of countries especially at a time when their(americans) very own is practically bankrupt. It just make no sense that american troops are occupying 900+ bases around the world.

 

[Stevisiov]

Since you are closing the other thread then I might aswell say the same thing here.

The US is not occupying these countries, it has military bases within them.

This gives the US a strategic (although not economic) advantage. The US can leverage this military advantage in order to look after its own interests.

Nations which embrace democracy over say communism are in the US's national interests, if they weren't, the US would not be interested in showing signs of protecting them.

There aren't many countries which could defend themselves against the likes of China, the US knows this, and is keen to protect trade partners, as afterall, the US's trade partners are a large aspect of the US's economic strength.

 

[A2K78]

The US is not occupying these countries, it has military bases within them.

The presence of any military force in-masses, especially with equipment IS an occupation. The japanese knows this and its due to this reason why the american presence in japan is constantly being protested on a weekly basis. The same goes for the middle east and especially Guam where the citizenry see the presence of american troops as an occupation.

This gives the US a strategic (although not economic) advantage. The US can leverage this military advantage in order to look after its own interests.

Nations which embrace democracy over say communism are in the US's national interests, if they weren't, the US would not be interested in showing signs of protecting them.

A quote Thomas Jefferson:

'Peace, commerce, and honest
friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none'

With that in mind there is no strategic advantage of having american troops on foreign soil. Do you see the british having a garrison on american soil, especially given their spat with a certain latin american country over the falklands? As Paul said, americans would be horrified at the fact a foreign nation is garrisoning on american soil, so that leave me to ask..if americans don't want foreign armies on their soil, why are they occupying foreign ones?

There aren't many countries which could defend themselves against the likes of China, the US knows this, and is keen to protect trade partners, as afterall, the US's trade partners are a large aspect of the US's economic strength.

Again, the american military does not need to be protecting rich countries, especially against third-world one e.g. North Korea, etc. Secondly, China have no interest in starting a military conflict other than protecting its soveriegnty, something they and any other country have a right to.

Overall your idea that the american military need to be on foreign soil is nothing but a reflection of the outdated neocon/cold war mentality that prevail in this country.

 

[Crispy]

If the countries themselves advised it, I'm not sure it's still technically an occupation. Here's what my grandfather said about this during WWII:

"It really didn't make much difference whether it was the British, or the Germans occupying my country. We didn't advise it, they just came in at there will."

Yes there was a big difference between Britain and Germany. However, it felt the same, both countries came in at their will, that's an occupation. However, if a country allows you to come in and setup camp, it's not an occupation.

Think of it this way, if you asked me to spend the night at your house, I wouldn't be taking your house over, just spending time there for a short while. If I barged in on your front door, without you letting me in, and taking up your resources for as long as I wanted, then that would be an occupation of your house.

 

[niky]

If the government itself allows it, then it's not an "occupation".

Do note that the United States will, if asked, remove its forces from a foreign country and abandon its facilities there. I'm still pissed that the Philippine Senate blocked moves for a referendum on the US Bases Treaty which would have possibly resulted in a vote to extend their stay.

Having US service personnel spending American dollars in your area is good for the economy, and the rent paid for the use of the land doesn't hurt either.

Mind you... US Forces in place in the Philippines AFTER the post-WWII Treaty were guests of the Philippine government. Prior to that, they were occupation forces, a matter which lead to much bitter resentment about their presence here, since the US bought the Philippines from Spain at a time when the Philippine insurgency was busy overthrowing the Spanish colonial government.

----

Despite what noisy protesters may say, nowadays, US Forces are often stationed in a country at the request of the government there. It's often to the benefit of the country they are stationed in... mind you... Japan doesn't have to spend as much on its military as Taiwan does, for example, to counter the (now minor) threat Chinese expansionism... and South Korea is protected against a North Korean regime bolstered by Russian and Chinese money and materiel... though lately SoKor has more than been able to hold its own.

What the US gets out of this is strategic power. Forward bases against potential enemies, a presence in global hot spots and security for foreign partners and assets... countries that supply raw materials, build US consumer goods or safeguard US money.

 

[A2K78]

If the government itself allows it, then it's not an "occupation".

Do note that the United States will, if asked, remove its forces from a foreign country and abandon its facilities there. I'm still pissed that the Philippine Senate blocked moves for a referendum on the US Bases Treaty which would have possibly resulted in a vote to extend their stay.

Having US service personnel spending American dollars in your area is good for the economy, and the rent paid for the use of the land doesn't hurt either.

Mind you... US Forces in place in the Philippines AFTER the post-WWII Treaty were guests of the Philippine government. Prior to that, they were occupation forces, a matter which lead to much bitter resentment about their presence here, since the US bought the Philippines from Spain at a time when the Philippine insurgency was busy overthrowing the Spanish colonial government.

----

Despite what noisy protesters may say, nowadays, US Forces are often stationed in a country at the request of the government there. It's often to the benefit of the country they are stationed in... mind you... Japan doesn't have to spend as much on its military as Taiwan does, for example, to counter the (now minor) threat Chinese expansionism... and South Korea is protected against a North Korean regime bolstered by Russian and Chinese money and materiel... though lately SoKor has more than been able to hold its own.

What the US gets out of this is strategic power. Forward bases against potential enemies, a presence in global hot spots and security for foreign partners and assets... countries that supply raw materials, build US consumer goods or safeguard US money.

wait, you honestly believe that american troops on foreign soil is doing a good service to a local population? Look at this, but I don't call the constant news of american soliders raping women a good thing. What even make the situation bad is the fact these soliders are given immunity, essentially putting them above the law. Lets not forget about Diego Garcia...beautiful island, but a sad story of the american military machine. read here and here. Now you're telling me that foreign bases are a good thing?

As for certain countries wanting american bases, the only reason why they accept is because they are were strong-armed into accepting, this when you have the threat of military and foreign aid being cut off. To put it in prespective, these countries have a damocles sword hanging above their heads.

 

[Tornado]

Look at this, but I don't call the constant news of american soliders raping women a good thing.

Does this constant news actually happen, or...

 

[wfooshee]

You are completely ignoring, and then dismissing, the economic impact of American soldiers being present, then grossly exaggerating the criminal element contained in their population.
Take any 500 soldiers and compare them to any 500 civilians, and you will have about the same ratio of white-collar types, blue-collar types, and thugs or scumbags. Probably fewer of the latter, actually.
And a crime commited by a soldier overseas is not ignored. He is usually tried and punished by American authorities rather than local, something which is pretty much promised to them when they sign up, i.e. you aren't gonna be dumped to the locals if you get in trouble somehow. That's hardly "immunity."
Let's also not forget who heavily financed the reconstructions of Europe and Japan post-war. That would be us, the evil occupiers and oppressors.

 

[niky]

wait, you honestly believe that american troops on foreign soil is doing a good service to a local population? Look at this, but I don't call the constant news of american soliders raping women a good thing. What even make the situation bad is the fact these soliders are given immunity, essentially putting them above the law.

Constant? You mean, once ever several years? I know of only three or four cases within my lifetime. One of which is questionable because it might involve a local prostitute.

This is amazing, if you think about it, since there are dozens of US military installations around the world and hundreds of thousands of horny, homesick, beer-drinking US troops out there.

And they're not above the law. US troops are subject to US laws while on duty, so if they do something that is against US law, they get punished. If they do something against local law while off-duty, they get punished. As here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...teenage-girl/2011/10/31/gIQAclDqaM_story.html

Lets not forget about Diego Garcia...beautiful island, but a sad story of the american military machine. read here and here. Now you're telling me that foreign bases are a good thing?

As for certain countries wanting american bases, the only reason why they accept is because they are were strong-armed into accepting, this when you have the threat of military and foreign aid being cut off. To put it in prespective, these countries have a damocles sword hanging above their heads.

Nobody strong-armed Korea into accepting bases. The Philippines accepted them because they didn't have the military power to assert themselves in the area.

While Japan didn't have a choice after World War 2, there is no longer any "strong-arming" involved.

Diego Garcia is a tragedy, really. Though I'd question whether the relocation was not without the express permission of the Indian government... as governments sometimes (a lot of times, really) do forcefully move people around for military reasons.

-

Question: Have you ever lived in a "foreign" country with a US Military facility in modern times? I won't deny there are drawbacks. Toxic/Nuclear waste. Other kinds of pollution. The danger of being in close proximity to US service personnel during terrorist/insurgent attacks. But there are always two sides to every story... and the other side is the injection of US dollars spent by servicemen into the local economy, infrastructure improvement, and the security against foreign military incursions and local insurgents that the US Military provides.

Heck, if you're lucky, the US servicemen will like it so much, they'll retire there. Lots of retired Americans still live in Clark, Subic and the Camp John Hay area in the Philippines. You'll find a bunch of them in Japan, too.

If you've never seen a bus bombing, people shot down in the streets by rebel snipers or felt the pressure of having a militant China test-firing shooting ballistic missiles into the sea lanes between you... or a belligerent North Korea prodding and poking your defenses every few weeks, then you don't understand why some governments and their citizens prefer the "lesser evil" of having a foreign army camped out on their shores, despite the protests of a small number of their population.

This is not to say those protestors don't have a point... but given that the local protestors are leftists who are supported and partially funded by communist insurgents who are partially funded by Muslim extremists and previously funded by the Chinese Communist Party, you'll understand if I'm not entirely sympathetic to their point of view.

 

[CMvan46]

I'm not even American and this thread baffles me. As has been said over and over again an occupation is by definition NOT when it's at the country's request.

Your claim that soldiers commit crimes routinely is ludicrous! As somebody said take 500 soldier and 500 civilians and you'll give them all plain clothes and you'd rarely be able to tell the difference (outside physical fitness).

They pay rent and spend money in the countries they stay in and it's a massive advantage having the US army within your borders even if it's a very small force. South Korea is more than capable of handling the North I'm sure but you don't think the US presence there doesn't make them think just that much harder?

Some people have grown up with the USA army of old and been told to fear it and of the awful things they are capable of. You don't think that the Japanese might still be slightly upset about oh you know those 2 damn nukes they dropped on them? Fact of the matter is that is the past but the people causing problems about their presence are likely still due to the history they've grown up with.

 

[XoravaX]

What I can say is that the US has military bases in some European countries since some of the countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Iceland are too small thus weak to defend themselves against a hostile force i.e. Russia in the case of the Baltic countries. Also, all the other NATO countries like Germany and Poland which have US bases in them is that the treaty is about military help to each other. As weird it may sound, if the US is attacked by a major force that's actually a threat, Germany, France, the UK and others have to come to help and vice versa.

Even Germany wasn't strong-handed to allow the US to have military bases in their land, instead the West Germany's government had to rely on the help of the Western Allies to prevent a possible invasion by East Germany and the other socialistic countries led by Soviet Union after WWII. Even though Germany was reunited some 20 years ago and there is no longer an imminent threat, the bases were still allowed to be kept as a sign of good will and friendship even though Germany is far more than capable of defending itself at current state, having the strongest land army in Europe. If not larger than Russia's, at least far better equipped.

And at least those European countries which have US bases in them I haven't heard any problems with the soldiers. Not as strict as were the German Wehrmacht's rules of behaving in a friendly (Axis) country in WWII (any harassment or aggression against the ally's civilians led to a death penalty, or at least that was the case in Finland - all rule-breaking Wehrmacht and SS personnel were executed by the Germans themselves), the rules for the American soldiers are still quite strict.

Mainly the US has military bases in Europe because they want to protect friendly nations (and important trade partners).

 

[Shaun]

In repsonse to the op.
So because Australia and the US have just signed an agreement to base 5000 US marines and equipment here we (Aus) are now being occupied by US forces like parts of Europe are being "occupied"?
By your reasoning we are, and frankly it's laughable. You obviously are having trouble seeing the difference between an occupation and a mutual agreement.
As has already been stated because the country has allowed the US to set up in their country they can also ask/tell you to leave as well. Refusal to leave would then become an occupation.

I think you will find the majority of countries that currently have US forces on their soil are happy to do so. Both countries benefit in some way.

Cheers Shaun.

 

[a6m5]

This:

The US is not occupying these countries, it has military bases within them.

And this:

This gives the US a strategic (although not economic) advantage.

Well, indirectly it does lead to economic advantage. At least in my opinion.

I grew up in Japan, and I have never met anyone who considered U.S. Military as occupational forces. There were many who complained about the stationed forces(criminal incidents, noise, etc.), or how costly it was for the Japanese Government to support the American bases in Japan. I don't recall to what extent that Japanese were billed for Americans being stationed in Japan, but yes, Japan had to cover a lot of expenses for the American Forces.

I do agree with the critics on the expenses. During the Cold War, I think Japan owed at least something for the protection of U.S. Armed Forces. Today, IMO, Americans are stationed in Japan mostly for its own strategic agendas. JSDF already bends over for unbelievably overpriced American miliary hardware. U.S. IMO should at least foot the bill for their own expenses.

 

[Biggles]

As Stevisiov said.

The US is not occupying these countries, it has military bases within them.

This gives the US a strategic (although not economic) advantage. The US can leverage this military advantage in order to look after its own interests.

If you're asking should they continue to maintain all these bases, then that is a good question.

The "military-industrial complex" is the most powerful "special interest" in the US. There are US corporations making a lot of money from all these overseas deployments. However, I think you can be certain that going forward a lot of these bases will be shut down or reduced in size. Of course, that can always be offset by a war against Iran or some other such thing ...

 

[niky]

The military industrial complex is interested in wars to sell weapons. When the US performs police action, for the most part, those countries don't have to buy as many weapons. Well.. in Japan's case... it does... but I don't know if that's forced. A lot of "friends of democracy" buy American weapons because the alternative was to... well... buy from the Russians... which is a strange thing to do when the regimes you're protecting yourself against are Russian allies.

But on the question of whether or not those bases should remain there... it's more a question of whether American citizens want to be spending money safeguarding somebody else's assets.

 

[a6m5]

Just to clarify, I do think that Japan, for political reasons, bends over voluntarily.

Little off-topic: For the Japan's F-X selection(next fighter jet), JASDF is flirting around with the Eurofighter like it actually has a chance. After failing to buy the best American jet, they will purchase the next best American jet. Maybe it was a feeble attempt at trying to coax the Americans to sell us their best jet.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Just to clarify, I do think that Japan, for political reasons, bends over voluntarily.

Little off-topic: For the Japan's F-X selection(next fighter jet), JASDF is flirting around with the Eurofighter like it actually has a chance. After failing to buy the best American jet, they will purchase the next best American jet. Maybe it was a feeble attempt at trying to coax the Americans to sell us their best jet.

That F-22 will be sold eventually down the line. When exactly? Who knows.

Their's always something on the drawing board when it comes to the military.

 

[wfooshee]

One thing not mentioned when talking about a military presence being an occupation or not:

Generally, an occupying army will be the folks who set policy for the region; you know: run the government.

I don't think we do that anywhere . . . . .

 

[DannyBarisGT]

I believe the US stations troops all over the world just to let them know they have biggest.

 

[Keef]

Newt Gengrich supports amnesty. He does not draw a hard line between who gets it and who doesn't, but if he did, by his example, his line would give some people amnesty and kick others out.

If a person has not attempted to become a legal citizen for the past 25 years, they are in fact an illegal immigrant. Granting them citizenship without effort on their part is indeed amnesty. And amnesty is bad. A "magnet" as Bachman and Romney put it.

Perry didn't give a straight answer on the amnesty issue. It sounds like he wants to almost make established families go through the legalization process.

Romney wants to make employers responsible for researching a potential employee's citizenship. I think this is a bad idea. I think they employer should be allowed to research the person's legality if they want to, but should not be forced to at penalty of law. That would mean that an employer would have to inspect every single person, legal or not, to cover their ass. They would be forced to inspect people even if they didn't want to. And of course that would mean I would have to be inspected whether or not I wanted to. I could simply go to another employer except for the fact that they're all required to inspect me.

I wouldn't doubt there's tons of employers out there who wouldn't give a rat's ass about my background, and simply want to pay me to do some work for them. No big deal. No reason for a damn background check.

EDIT: Romney just stated very clearly that he supports starting a civil war inside Syria, in order to incite regime change. Perry didn't state it as clearly, but he still supports acts of war against the country. Cain stated his support for sanctions against the country.

These people are all war mongers. Ron Paul is the only one who believes we should shut down these conflicts.

 

[a6m5]

If a person has not attempted to become a legal citizen for the past 25 years, they are in fact an illegal immigrant.

Looks like I will be 86'd from the States in one more year. I will miss you guys. I hope they have internet in Japan, so I can at least still hang with my gtp buddies! I think you meant legal resident?

That F-22 will be sold eventually down the line. When exactly? Who knows.

Their's always something on the drawing board when it comes to the military.

Well, eventually, everyone will have a jet like F-22, or better.

 

[Keef]

Looks like I will be 86'd from the States in one more year. I will miss you guys. I hope they have internet in Japan, so I can at least still hang with my gtp buddies! I think you meant legal resident?

Something like that. If you're not legal, you're illegal. You get what I mean.

 

[boomee]

whatever dude just cause the troops are there doesnet mean everyone is doing something bad ( IE raping women) I am not saying by any means it should be excused but I do believe the troops are defintily doing something good ( if anything helping there economy out) if they truly didint want us in the country all they would have to do is say the word

 

[boomee]

Looks like I will be 86'd from the States in one more year. I will miss you guys. I hope they have internet in Japan, so I can at least still hang with my gtp buddies! I think you meant legal resident?


Well, eventually, everyone will have a jet like F-22, or better.

and when that happens America will arlready have a much better modle in the pipline

 

[Villain]

Strategy is lost on this poor soul. Please don't vote.

 

[Keef]

I just watched the beginning of the debate tonight. Romney has shown a glaring misunderstanding of the term "war" as it is defined in our Constitution.

He says that terrorists are not criminals and we don't go after them with criminal law. We go after them with the laws of war. Hate to break it to you Romney, but you're wrong.

War is a condition declared by our Congress, between our country and another country. But terrorists are not a sovereign state. Their amoebic organizations, just groups of people. We can't declare war on them and go after them without infringing the sovereignty of the nations in which they hide, nations which of course we did not declare war on. Therefore, we must deal with the terrorists with criminal law. This is a view that Dr. Paul has stated openly on many occasions.

So there you have it. Romney doesn't understand what "war" is, or how to use it. And people want this guy to be our president?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Isn't the last war congress declared was WW1?

Didn't FDR start the trend of presidents declaring war?

 

[niky]

What? Invade another country because of the nebulous possible (non) connection between its rulers and dead terrorists?

No problem.

 

[Keef]

isn't the last war congress declared was ww1?

Didn't fdr start the trend of presidents declaring war?

World War 2. Since then, nothing.

 

[Mr. S]

World War 2. Since then, nothing.

All the other stuff, like Vietnam, hasn't been approved / declared by them? I mean, I knew Vietnam was kind of a shady thing but what about Korea, Iraq...Iraq again, Afghanistan etc.?