Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

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

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comhelpannouncementlounge
114 Posts 11 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O 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.

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #36

    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

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • O 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.

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #37

      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.

      O 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • I Ilion

        73Zeppelin wrote:

        In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

        Really? Why don't you (singular and plural) pretend that a conservative said that? edit: Or, if that doesn't quite help you see reality correctly, why don't you pretend that Obama is proposing extending the US's (hypothetical) missle shield to cover European allies and Limbaugh is savaging him on the issue?

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Christian Graus
        wrote on last edited by
        #38

        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.

        I 7 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • C 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.

          I Offline
          I Offline
          Ilion
          wrote on last edited by
          #39

          Christian Graus wrote:

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

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

          _ 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • O 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.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #40

            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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • L Lost User

              Ilíon wrote:

              "Fotress America" is not viable.

              Why not? 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.

              S Offline
              S Offline
              Stan Shannon
              wrote on last edited by
              #41

              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.

              I L O 4 Replies Last reply
              0
              • S 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.

                I Offline
                I Offline
                Ilion
                wrote on last edited by
                #42

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

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S 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.

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #43

                  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.

                  S 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    73Zeppelin wrote:

                    In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

                    Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #44

                    How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #45

                      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.

                      L 2 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • S 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.

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #46

                        Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L 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.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #47

                          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

                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L 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.

                            L Offline
                            L Offline
                            Lost User
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #48

                            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.

                            O 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L 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

                              L Offline
                              L Offline
                              Lost User
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #49

                              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.

                              L O 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • L 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.

                                L Offline
                                L Offline
                                Lost User
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #50

                                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

                                L 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • L Lost User

                                  Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

                                  S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  Stan Shannon
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #51

                                  I agree completely. But thats an argument againt the welfare state, not the military.

                                  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.

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • L 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.

                                    O Offline
                                    O Offline
                                    Oakman
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #52

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days.

                                    Oh, back then both countries and at least half of Western Europe practiced gunboat diplomacy.

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    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.

                                    For better or for worse, neither country is self-sure enough these days to reclaim assets taken by jolly jumpup Beloved Leaders. Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it.

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    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

                                    These days the largest corporations seem to be costing us money, not providing it. However, if they need protection, I am sure Blackwater would be glad to provide it. Many of their employees are ex-Green Beanies or SAS and are paid commensurately with the risk involved. Better their blood be spilled, if blood must be spilled, than that of some 19 year old pimple-face who thought he'd make a little extra dough by joining the National Guard.

                                    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.

                                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • L 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.

                                      S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      Stan Shannon
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #53

                                      Which is an argument for returning to a true free market health care system.

                                      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.

                                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S 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.

                                        O Offline
                                        O Offline
                                        Oakman
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #54

                                        Stan Shannon wrote:

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

                                        It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

                                        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.

                                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • L 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.

                                          O Offline
                                          O Offline
                                          Oakman
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #55

                                          Mike Mullikin wrote:

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

                                          Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege. I'm not faulting the Aussies. They've got a good thing going, but we're the ones who set it up and we're the ones who act like it's a matter of national security to police the entire world.

                                          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.

                                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups