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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Lost User]

Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

[Lost User]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

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.

I'm not aware of who owns which assets there but the point I wanted to make is that there must be some advantage to the US in having access to that facility. I can't imagine that the US presence there is solely for the benefit of Australia. Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security? We also have the Parkes Observatory[^] used by NASA

[Lost User]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

"World Police" business

I rather suspect it is for the same reason that BMEWS at RAF Fylingdales exists. Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence. But since the end of the cold war, it is arguable that a need still exists, those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

[Lost User]

Josh Gray wrote:

Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security?

Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense? If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

[Lost User]

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

Probably

Mike Mullikin wrote:

If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

Oh FFS