Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

[Lost User]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc...

When we ceased to be a World Power, we had to relinquish our colonies too... :sigh:

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

However, there are political and economic investments that the United States has around the globe so it is understandable that they might also wish a military presence as well, if only to give some measure of security towards those other stated investments.

Here's a thought: Let's not get involved in entangling foreign alliances. . .where have I heard that before?[^] By the way, at least in theory, the U.S Government does not make economic investments but leaves that to private companies. I personally find the concept that we would use American troops to defend the interests of Haliburton or Walmart to be less than appetising.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

women wouldn't wear padded bras.

How do you expect me to concentrate on a serious wind-up?

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

Bob Emmett wrote:

When we ceased to be a World Power, we had to relinquish our colonies too...

It's time we release them or make them states so they can be taxed properly. ;)

[Ilion]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Both Moral and ["]Machiavellian["]? :rolleyes:

Yes. :rolleyes: yourself.

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

Let the arseholes who talk about America's "moral" responsibility to the rest of the world

Presumably these are citizens of the USA? Everyone else seems to want either your money or your lives. :sigh:

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

It's time we release them or make them states so they can be taxed properly

Even Canada?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

How do you expect me to concentrate on a serious wind-up?

Think of bras as support housings for frontal radars ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Lost User]

I should have guessed: the USA and devious cunning, I haven't seen that in many years. Still got the ruthlessness, though.

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Presumably these are citizens of the USA? Everyone else seems to want either your money or your lives.

Germany and the UK are paid around 3 billion a year as rent for the American bases in their country. The payrolls for the locals in those two countries alone are gi-normous and the amount of money the American GI spends locally has a major impact on the local economy. The primary purpose of those bases, or so I am told, is to protect the UK and Germany from those countries which might wish to do one or both of them, harm. Of course the love and undying gratitude of the average Brit or German and the total lack of any anti-American prejudice shown to our tourists more than makes up for our investment.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

I personally find the concept that we would use American troops to defend the interests of ... Walmart

Great, we're nationalising Asda, in order to secure the great British supermarkets.

Bob Emmett

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

By the way, at least in theory, the U.S Government does not make economic investments but leaves that to private companies.

This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days. And in respect of Washington's comments, if you are not seen to be protecting your foreign assets then those assets may be seized with you being unable to suitably respond to rectify the seizure. To protect the interests of Haliburton you might indeed find distasteful or unappetizing or even objectionable but if that company is a source of revenue that your government can tax then protection of that revenue stream could be as important to the American Government as Hong Kong (Opium Wars) was to the then British Empire.

[Christian Graus]

I am pleased to see that you're actually discussing things around here nowadays. I don't want that to sound patronising, I don't expect you to care what I think, but it still makes me glad.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

[Ilion]

Christian Graus wrote:

... I don't expect you to care what I think, ...

"What is different about this night from all other nights?"

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

Germany and the UK are paid around 3 billion a year as rent for the American bases in their country.

Seems fair. How much would the USA have to be paid to allow armed foreign nationals on its soil?

Oakman wrote:

The primary purpose of those bases, or so I am told, is to protect the UK and Germany from those countries which might wish to do one or both of them, harm.

I suspect that they must be a benefit to the USA. No countries act out of altruism (alas).

Oakman wrote:

the love and undying gratitude of the average Brit

Oh, come on - WW2 has long faded from the national consciousness. (Oiks seem to think it was just England vs Germany.)

Oakman wrote:

total lack of any anti-American prejudice shown to our tourists

Englishmen: "they inherit from their fathers, an unreasonable prejudice against all nations under the sun; ... characterized by opprobrious epithet; such as a chattering Frenchman, an Italian ape, a German hog, and a beastly Dutchman; nay, their national prepossession is maintained even against those people with whom they are united ...". Tobias Smollett in 1753

Bob Emmett

[Stan Shannon]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Ilion]

Nor, at present, snuggled right into Uncle Sam's armpit, as Canada is, the need.

[Lost User]

This, Stan, probably causes you some displeasure US health system is plagued by high cost and waste: experts [^]. In light of that article, perhaps Canada isn't all bad.

[Lost User]

How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

[Lost User]

If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.