Senator proposes permanent US bases in Afghanistan

Old Fezzywig said:
Close all bases on foreign soil.
Click to expand...
Modify: Close all bases on foreign soil that are not paid for by the host country. \
Since the end of WWII, many countries have depended on our military presence for their own security, and other factors (money). If they want our presence, it's time they started paying for it.

Of course, the end result will probably be the same. But figure we should at least give them the opportunity to keep us around. Like here at home, many places like the money our soldiers spread around when stationed there.
 
Good Luck said:
Modify: Close all bases on foreign soil that are not paid for by the host country. \
Since the end of WWII, many countries have depended on our military presence for their own security, and other factors (money). If they want our presence, it's time they started paying for it.

Of course, the end result will probably be the same. But figure we should at least give them the opportunity to keep us around. Like here at home, many places like the money our soldiers spread around when stationed there.
Click to expand...


Which countries depend on our military presence for their own security?

I think that's quite an overstatement. We have bases overseas to mainly project our own power and influence. Yes, other countries benefit, but by and large the bases serve our interests, not the interests of the host country.
 
Good Luck said:
Modify: Close all bases on foreign soil that are not paid for by the host country. \
Since the end of WWII, many countries have depended on our military presence for their own security, and other factors (money). If they want our presence, it's time they started paying for it.

Of course, the end result will probably be the same. But figure we should at least give them the opportunity to keep us around. Like here at home, many places like the money our soldiers spread around when stationed there.
Click to expand...
Sorry man, but I still say close them all. It's not our job to protect other countries.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
SK, Turkey, and Japan are three I can think of off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


Japan and NK are legitimate. Turkey's a stretch. But those bases are a small proportion of overseas bases as a whole.


Edit: Well, rethinking it. Japan and Korea are a small proportion of the total bases, but a significant chucnk of total assets and personnel.
 
Last edited:
Old Fezzywig said:
Turkey stands between the Balkans, the Middle East, and Russian Caucuses. All are very violent areas. Japan has at least 5 military bases, more than any other country.
Click to expand...


Right, check my edit. The numerous bases we have in the rest of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are more than sufficient to protect Turkey (not to mention its inclusion in NATO).

We are there more for use as a means to project influence in the Middle East (Iraq and Iran) than to protect Turkey from its neighbors.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
No, we use Turkey as a means to keep Russia in the Black Sea. The ME is protected via Kuwait and Diego Garcia.
Click to expand...


I suppose it isn't an either/or proposition and you may be right as well, but in any event I don't see your response as a rebuttal to my basic point that we have people Turkey for our benefit, not Turkey's.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I suppose it isn't an either/or proposition and you may be right as well, but in any event I don't see your response as a rebuttal to my basic point that we have people Turkey for our benefit, not Turkey's.
Click to expand...
The fact that they have ancient rivalries with all three of the previously mentioned areas certainly does benefit them. Just because it ALSO benefits us, does not mean we do not protect them.

Also, a little known fact is that the Cuban missile crisis occurred because we basically did the same thing with Turkey first.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
The fact that they have ancient rivalries with all three of the previously mentioned areas certainly does benefit them. Just because it ALSO benefits us, does not mean we do not protect them.

Also, a little known fact is that the Cuban missile crisis occurred because we basically did the same thing with Turkey first.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying we do not protect them (hell, they're in NATO so we kinda have to). I'm just saying that the base in Turkey is not there to protect Turkey. We have plenty of ways to do that without the base. It's there to protect our interests in the region.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not saying we do not protect them (hell, they're in NATO so we kinda have to). I'm just saying that the base in Turkey is not there to protect Turkey. We have plenty of ways to do that without the base. It's there to protect our interests in the region.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying that Turkey relies on that base for their protection. Whether that is why we put it there or not is not the issue. It DOES protect them, and they know it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not saying we do not protect them (hell, they're in NATO so we kinda have to). I'm just saying that the base in Turkey is not there to protect Turkey. We have plenty of ways to do that without the base. It's there to protect our interests in the region.
Click to expand...

so you're saying turkey has our best interests in mind?

do explain
 
Old Fezzywig said:
And I'm saying that Turkey relies on that base for their protection. Whether that is why we put it there or not is not the issue. It DOES protect them, and they know it.
Click to expand...


Of course it protects them and they know it. And I'm not really concerned with why we put it there, I'm addressing whet we keep it there. We keep it there not to protect Turkey, but to protect our interests. Those nukes aren't there to protect Turkey in the event of an attack on Turkey.
 
Rana said:
They did not declare war, there was never a declaration of war from Congress.

There has only been declarations of war fives times in the USA and Iraq wasn't one of them. This was a war Bush declared, not Congress. They just gave him financing.
Click to expand...

You're correct as far as formal declarations of war are concerned (but the number is actually 11, most recently against Romania in 1942).

However, throughout American history numberous wars have been fought with a conditional declaration of war, which includes the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neither the First nor Second Barbary War (fought under Jefferson and Madison, respectively) were formally declared. My point was that regardless of our personal opinion of the war in Iraq, it is a constitutional war.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Of course it protects them and they know it. And I'm not really concerned with why we put it there, I'm addressing whet we keep it there. We keep it there not to protect Turkey, but to protect our interests. Those nukes aren't there to protect Turkey in the event of an attack on Turkey.
Click to expand...
I think we're bogging each other down to minutia with petty details, so I'll redirect this discussion a little. Do you support our military bases on foreign soil? Because if you don't we're splitting hairs for no reason.

And to split some more hairs, we no longer have nukes in Turkey.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
I think we're bogging each other down to minutia with petty details, so I'll redirect this discussion a little. Do you support our military bases on foreign soil? Because if you don't we're splitting hairs for no reason.

And to split some more hairs, we no longer have nukes in Turkey.
Click to expand...

Military bases to protect other countries is a myth. US military bases exist for one thing and one thing only:

To protect US trade.

Unfortunately they generate mistrust and hatred in the host countries and so they must be armed to defend THEMSELVES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top