TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/politics/02gates.html?hp
At this rate, Iraq is going to become another Germany (US Soldiers there since 1945) or South Korea (US Soldiers there since 1952.)
If the world can not look after itself, then that is the world's problem. It is illogical for the United States to continue sending billions in tribute through our defense department to nations that are our economic competitors.
Let's not forget that we've also had thousands stationed in Japan since 1945.
At this rate we might as well start calling this Pax Americana, because like Pax Romana it's built around a single empire policing the world, and minimizing armed conflict.
Just like Pax Romana the United States is facing other Power Blocs (An emerging Block built around Russia, another block built around China and South East Asia, and another block built around the Muslim World.)
Yet, just like Pax Romana this new Pax Americana is marked by a complete failure by the "empire" to secure its own borders, and defend its own citizens, while continuing to waste more and more on bread and circuses for the masses to ensure their continued support of armies deployed on foreign soil.
The last time such a peace ended humanity saw a millennia of backwards regression that was known as the dark ages. A period marked by the disappearance of knowledge from the Western World.
We can not afford to accept responsibility for the rest of the world by subsidizing their defense, and in the case of most of these nations the question is who are we protecting them from, ourselves?
Troops stationed in Germany do not have a logical threat to point to. The only threat to Turkey is Syria, but even that is not a likely threat, because both of them are more or less Muslim Nations. Turkey's northern neighbor, Greece is part of NATO, and while there are conflicts between them and Turkey an outright war is unlikely.
Then there's South Korea. While it does face a reasonable threat it is no longer the largely agricultural backwater that it was when we first came to its aid against Communism. It should be able to pay for its own defense now.
As should Japan, a nation with plenty of potential soldiers, and the infrastructure to support a standing army. The same can be said of Germany.
There are chances that such nations might be willing to use their military aggressively, but until they do so then it really is not any of our concern. Even after they do so, as long as it's not targeted at us, it is not any of our concern.
The increase in global cooperation and competition through business instead of military force should be seen as an indicator that the United States does not need to continue to subsidize these nations by wasting billions of dollars on soldiers stationed in these countries. Billions that would be better spent here in the United States where that money would circulate through communities around military bases, and help Americans.
One can only wonder how long we're going to end up in Iraq for. Or perhaps, one can only wonder if McCain was right, that we were going to be there, forever, because Obama's lack of standing by his "promise" that we would withdraw from Iraq by 2010 indicates that we are going to be stuck occuppying it for the forseeable future, and into the distant future. Just like we are stuck occuppying Japan, Germany, and South Korea.
Instead of treating these sovereign nations like children, shouldn't we treat them like responsible adults that can contemplate the consequences of their own actions? Or are we truly so full of hubris that we think we can actually accomplish what France, England, Spain, Japan, and Germany failed to do, take over the world and maintain a global empire?
Just goes to show you that Obama is full of Bullshit. Leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq is not a withdrawal, it's just a redeployment of other forces.
At this rate, Iraq is going to become another Germany (US Soldiers there since 1945) or South Korea (US Soldiers there since 1952.)
If the world can not look after itself, then that is the world's problem. It is illogical for the United States to continue sending billions in tribute through our defense department to nations that are our economic competitors.
Let's not forget that we've also had thousands stationed in Japan since 1945.
At this rate we might as well start calling this Pax Americana, because like Pax Romana it's built around a single empire policing the world, and minimizing armed conflict.
Just like Pax Romana the United States is facing other Power Blocs (An emerging Block built around Russia, another block built around China and South East Asia, and another block built around the Muslim World.)
Yet, just like Pax Romana this new Pax Americana is marked by a complete failure by the "empire" to secure its own borders, and defend its own citizens, while continuing to waste more and more on bread and circuses for the masses to ensure their continued support of armies deployed on foreign soil.
The last time such a peace ended humanity saw a millennia of backwards regression that was known as the dark ages. A period marked by the disappearance of knowledge from the Western World.
We can not afford to accept responsibility for the rest of the world by subsidizing their defense, and in the case of most of these nations the question is who are we protecting them from, ourselves?
Troops stationed in Germany do not have a logical threat to point to. The only threat to Turkey is Syria, but even that is not a likely threat, because both of them are more or less Muslim Nations. Turkey's northern neighbor, Greece is part of NATO, and while there are conflicts between them and Turkey an outright war is unlikely.
Then there's South Korea. While it does face a reasonable threat it is no longer the largely agricultural backwater that it was when we first came to its aid against Communism. It should be able to pay for its own defense now.
As should Japan, a nation with plenty of potential soldiers, and the infrastructure to support a standing army. The same can be said of Germany.
There are chances that such nations might be willing to use their military aggressively, but until they do so then it really is not any of our concern. Even after they do so, as long as it's not targeted at us, it is not any of our concern.
The increase in global cooperation and competition through business instead of military force should be seen as an indicator that the United States does not need to continue to subsidize these nations by wasting billions of dollars on soldiers stationed in these countries. Billions that would be better spent here in the United States where that money would circulate through communities around military bases, and help Americans.
One can only wonder how long we're going to end up in Iraq for. Or perhaps, one can only wonder if McCain was right, that we were going to be there, forever, because Obama's lack of standing by his "promise" that we would withdraw from Iraq by 2010 indicates that we are going to be stuck occuppying it for the forseeable future, and into the distant future. Just like we are stuck occuppying Japan, Germany, and South Korea.
Instead of treating these sovereign nations like children, shouldn't we treat them like responsible adults that can contemplate the consequences of their own actions? Or are we truly so full of hubris that we think we can actually accomplish what France, England, Spain, Japan, and Germany failed to do, take over the world and maintain a global empire?