From Mother Jones’s Mission Creep: America’s Unwelcome Advances: “According to the Pentagon’s 2008 ‘Base Structure Report,’…the United States maintains 761 active military ’sites’ in foreign countries…Counting domestic military bases and those on US territories, the total is 5,429….[G]iven that there are only 192 countries in the United Nations, 761 foreign bases is a remarkable example of imperial overstretch—even more so considering that official military reports understate the actual size of the US footprint (the official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss…e.g. in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan).”
Now Hearing- Lauryn Hill – Intro
- Lauryn Hill – The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill
- Lauryn Hill – Everything Is Everything
- Lauryn Hill – Nothing Even Matters
- Lauryn Hill – Every Ghetto, Every City
- Lauryn Hill – Forgive Them Father
- Lauryn Hill – I Used to Love Him
- Lauryn Hill – When It Hurts So Bad
- Lauryn Hill – Final Hour
- Lauryn Hill – Superstar
52 Comments
Honestly, Rome?
even though rome was a long time ago… - it’s still relevant to the subject of military power and expansion… - and if it’s too long ago and you think that the comparison is ridiculous… - give me the name of another country today that has traveled the globe and set up shop the way that we have militarily… - there isn’t any other country or city or movement that can even compare to our hunger for military might… - our obsession with wanting to threaten other countries… - it’s not just a curiosity… - we’re talking about military bases… - not libraries…
and don’t give me that “we’re there to help” crap… - because once the help leaves… - the military stays… - and most of these people in the military don’t speak the native language of the country they’re in… - so… - there is something going on other than helping…
It is the comparing of the number of bases that is ridiculous when you consider the difference in amount of people and territory between today’s world and the world back then. Not to mention the technology difference.
I am also pretty sure that a majority of the Roman outposts were in lands that the Romans conquered so the comparison falls short there also. And please lets not start the “US might as well of conquered blablablabla” because it is not true.
And while I am not saying that this is true today the Romans helped a lot of these places move forward into the then modern world. Bringing stability and relative peace to places that were mostly fighting societies was not such a bad thing. Look what happened to Britain after the Romans left.
I will say that the local economic boost having US bases in other countries for that country is significant as I am sure it was back in the days of the Romans. Just ask some of the towns in Europe what happened to their economy when the US shut down bases there.
We all understand that the US leases space from these coutries right? The US did not invade Italy and set up 70+ bases there.
we’re not there independently… - again… - we’re talking about military bases… - not green peace facilities… - we’re talking about a base that’s most likely fenced off and guaranteed that you couldn’t actually go into and find out exactly what they’re doing…
they’re not there to help the other countries for the most part… - they’re there to help america and america’s strength in the world… - do you actually think the powers that make these decisions want to help other countries strengthen their economies?
c’mon…
if we wanted to do that… - why not just set up tutorial courses on how to make an economy thrive?
sending the military to help the economy? - that’s like sending a football coach to help a chess team…
I am not sure what you are getting at. A military base is a place with guns or weapons and men and woman trained to use them. The US leases land from a country to put the base there; we are not there by force. The Romans were there mostly by force.
Do I think that the US has an interest in other countries having strong economies? Yeah I do. Is that why the bases are there? No. They are there to provide logistics/support/aid to US interests around the world. They do provide aid when there is a natural disaster (China/Pakistan/Mexico/South America, ect) and those bases were crucial in this.
The economy boost around the bases is an ancillary benefit of them being there, as I am sure there are ancillary detriments also (prostitution).
what i’m getting at is that it’s the military… - it’s not people with actual love in their hearts that are there for the purpose of genuine help… - most of the help that you think that they’re giving is probably contracted to professionals outside of the field of blowing your head off… - like the red cross or whoever… - the military isn’t there to help as much as they are there to keep an eye on foreign activity and try to police the world… - it’s a little intimidating… - no? - how would you like a big military base of another country near your house?
it sounds fishy is all i’m saying…
[This and two other comments from Dave have been removed by the moderator]
Again I have no illusions on what a military base is, my only point is that in comparing them to the Romans is a stretch. Romans were there after conquering a land the US is not.
That is all, as for the military not helping the local people when there is a crisis then you are just plain out wrong. Ask the red cross how they get the supplies they need to the remote areas.
And before you swear the new rule is you need to say earmuffs.
Also would like to point out that a site could just mean the US government is leasing office space in a building in Germany or a refueling dock in the Bahamas.
still sounds fishy… - and i’m sure it’s even more so to the people who see a u.s. military base on their land… - even if they leased it… - and especially if there isn’t any reason for them to be there… - like a natural disaster or whatever… - most people probably have no idea why a u.s. military base is there… - their government might… - but they don’t…
and again… - it’s not an all out effort to help people… - like it or not… - there is something else… - i don’t know what it is specifically… - but… - i bet it has nothing to do with handing out candy and helping the red cross chopper in supplies… - why should a helicopter with plasma and food be a military chopper loaded up to the gills with weaponry? - you’d figure that maybe they’d be able to lift more supplies if half its weight wasn’t taken up by its artillery…
but the pentagon’s sole focus isn’t on truly helping people… - is it? - i don’t think so… - i see it more like a billionaire giving a bum twenty five cents…
You just have a distrust of anything the US does and I have no problem with that. I aggree they are not there to give out candy or anything like that. They are there for support of US interets.Period. But they do help and the choppers they use to carry supplies usually the unarmed chinooks.
Also want to point out to try to keep this site from being viewed as a place that does not fact check things before they post it. According to National Army Security Agency Association these are the coutries where we have bases. (again sites does not equal base)
BAHRAIN
BELGIUM
CUBA
DIEGO GARCIA
GERMANY
GREECE
GREENLAND
GUAM / MARIANAS ISLAND
ICELAND
ITALY
JAPAN
NETHERLANDS
PORTUGAL
PUERTO RICO
SOUTH KOREA
SPAIN
TURKEY
UNITED KINGDOM
Bases from other sites.
Saudi Arabia
Panama
Hungary
Kyrgyzstan
Ecudor (until 09 then moving somewhere else)
The Philippines
no bases in iraq or afghanistan? - interesting…
and what about the navy and all of our warships? - maybe we should include those as bases also… - they’re pretty big and basically represent the same thing as a military base does and utilize all of the same tools and ideas… - all the same people… - different uniform… - there’s probably more gay sex though… - in the navy… - you know… - lonely men… - out on the desperate sea… - nothing but sunshine and secrets… - glistening young men mopping the deck with paper towels glued to their ak47s…
(the official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss…e.g. in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan)
From Kyles original post.
Also, from Kyle’s original post, “According to the Pentagon’s 2008 ‘Base Structure Report…” so if you want to talk about fact-checking, check that fact, not another report by the National Army Security Agency, which without looking at it, I’m going to assume is talking about ARMY bases, and doesn’t include Air force, Navy, and Marines.
Check out the 2008 Base Structure Report.
They say the same thing I have checked it. Again a site does not equal base but this article seems to make the that connection. It is just misleading is all I am saying.
Seriously, David take a chill pill. Why do you hate the government so much. Why do you think there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11…OUR GOVERNMENT. Yes our govt’ isn’t the best in the world, but we are ONE of the best democratic society out there. Some things need work, but on a whole - we’re pretty damn good.
Our bases all over the world is a good thing, FOR THE WORLD. We ARE the super power, someone has to be, don’t you think its better we are and not the Soviet Union. We pay foreign governments to be in there country so we are helping their economy, which in turns help our economy…The world is now a Global Economy. With our bases over seas, we are there to help foreign governments and our own interests that helps the world sustain some means of peace.
Please this is economic evolution…the Romans were invaders…BIG difference…
Big Hugs!
Stumpy
“We ARE the super power…someone has to be.”
I think that’s a load of shit. There were no “super powers” in the eras of the world wars. That’s not to say that every country was equal, but the United States could not have defeated Germany on its own. Germany could not have captured most of Europe and Northern Africa on its own. Etc.
The world of one or two “super powers” doesn’t start until the Cold War. Before that, you had the British, Dutch, Spanish, Ottoman, Romans, Persians, all with their own mini-empires. You’re talking about a huge swath of human history with no “super power.”
What Dave (and I) don’t like about our country is the general feeling that the U.S. is a “special” place that exists outside of history. The feeling that it’s our right to spread our tentacles across the globe in order to defend “our interests.”
You know what that “defense of our interests” accomplished a couple of months ago? It bombed a wedding celebration in Afghanistan because the celebrants were firing their guns into the air. Dozens of innocent people died. That’s not a number, Shawn. That’s real people, with mothers, and lives, and loves and wants. WE did that. America.
That’s not “collateral damage.” That’s manslaughter.
What I (and I assume Dave) don’t like is the notion that because there is oil somewhere, or a “market” that can be “captured,” that means it is in our “interest” to be there, regardless of the fact that that place is a sovereign country with people trying to go about their own lives in the stream of their own history. That we feel we have a right to go in with our “values” and flip everything on its ear, that’s what angers me (us).
The world doesn’t need a “super power.” The world needs a balance of power, and when shit goes down like in Darfur, the world needs to come together and make shit right. Not a single power thinking it can dictate how the rest of world will behave, but a community of powers working together to make the world a better place.
Which is just one reason why NOW is the time to have a community organizer as a president.
And Shawn, this is from the article this post is talking about:
“In fact, the purpose of our overseas bases is to maintain US dominance in the world, and to reinforce what military analyst Charles Maier calls our “empire of consumption.” The United States possesses less than 5 percent of global population but consumes about one-quarter of all global resources, including petroleum. Our empire exists so we can exploit a much greater share of the world’s wealth than we are entitled to, and to prevent other nations from combining against us to take their rightful share.”
And Justin, did you read the article, or just the quote? Because what the article is about is the growing anger among the local citizenry and governments where these bases are located.
And also…yes, America did invade Italy and put 70 bases there. It was called World War II.
“The reach of the US military expanded rapidly after World War II and the Korean truce, when we acquired our largest overseas enclaves in the defeated countries of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and on Allied turf in Great Britain and South Korea.”
so you are telling me, if we pull out of most of our bases and they have some kind of crisis, be it natural disaster, terroist incedient, or foreign invasion, those countries that kicked us out are not going to ask for US assistance? When if we were there, our mere presence may help prevent all of these. EVEN a natural disaster (in some way).
I know you don’t agree with the US being the worlds “Policeman”, but there needs to be one. Sadam Hussein could have easily been the next Hitler…but with us now being a “policeman”, after WWII, we didn’t have to worry about WWIII. If we had the same power back in 1939, I will bet you WWII would have never happened and millions of lives would have been saved. Its a different climate. We can not become a country of Isolationists like we were becoming in the 1930’s. it’s a different world.
“consumes about one-quarter of all global resources, including petroleum. ” and with us consuming 1/4 of the resources, we are also paying for those resources, we are not invading and just taking -Ala Roman empire - So we are the major contributor to the global economy.
we’re only paying foreign governments or leasing foreign land because the countries that we want to be in literally have no other choice… - it’s either get paid or get invaded or surrounded or choked to death by cutting off some sort of export or import… - seriously… - do you actually think that if a country rejects our offer we’re going to shake their hands and say “have a nice day and thanks for your time”?
yes. - perhaps we are helping their economy by shipping a corporation overseas or handing a foreign government money or weapons in exchange for pieces of land… - but… - we’ll never let a foreign economy thrive or get as nearly as big as ours is… - but again… - i don’t see the connection between a military base and a foreign economy… - why the military? - why does it have to be a military base? - can’t our government give just as much money or hands to help without it having anything to do with the military?
i don’t hate the government… - i don’t hate anyone… - i just think that it smells like a bunch of festering turds…
The rising anger is fine and when the lease is up if they do not want us there we leave (as we will in Ecuador). Again I am not disputing that we have bases across the globe just that comparing it to the romans and the amount of bases is misleading.
Now on to your point about the bases in Italy and when they were put there.
After ww2 you have to remember that these places were destroyed and the government of these countries asked the US to be there to help. Are you comparing that to what the romans did? Really? Are you comparing a Roman base to a leased office in Germany that employs no military? Really?
Also your opinion of there not needing to be a super power is your opinion and I respect it. I tend to believe that there will always be some group of people that will try to flaunt its might. It has been this way throughout our history (you say that there was an balance and I say that there was only a group of countries close in power that fought to gain dominance) Darfur would still happen even with the balance (you think that the EU is going to help after the US scales down its presence there? China? Russia? Any country in the MIddle east? )
If the US pulls out then the countries of the EU would have to arm themselves. There will be more skirmishes between Russia and its neighbors (even with the US presence there look what happens) If you do not agree that is fine this is my opinion.
Now you have a mistrust of the government and that is fine, again i respect your opinion, that shapes your views on why we are around the world. I distrust people, not the individual but the group.
First of all, Saddam Hussein could not have easily been the world’s next Hitler. He didn’t know how to marshall the machinery of his nation to bring them out of the “dark age” that post-WW I Germany was in, nor was he a leader with a rabid cadre of devoted followers. He was a strong man holding onto power by the tip of his knife, and the slightest paranoid misstep would have sent him tumbling into an unmarked grave in the Iraqi desert.
Second, the world doesn’t need a “police man.” It needs a community of concerned countries (which are each just communities of people) who can work together to solve the great issues of our time.
And you think we would have saved lives in 1939? Like we saved lives in Darfur and Somalia?
We’re not “paying” for those resources. We’re taking them. If we’re “paying” anyone, it’s the multinational corporations who claim to “own” those resources, not the citizens who actually live in the countries where those resources are located. You think the average Iraqi is seeing any money from the oil we’re getting? Maybe they will in terms of governmental improvements to infrastructure, but with a $79 billion surplus in Iraq’s coffers right now, they don’t seem to be willing to spend it.
And if we’re not “just invading and taking,” WHAT THE HELL DID WE GO INTO IRAQ FOR?
If you say WMD or to “stop the terrorists” or any of that other Republican talking-point horeshit, then you’ve been living with your head in the blood-stained sand for eight years.
Dave we are not going to invade Germany, or Japan even if they kick us out. Hell Ecuador is kicking us out and we are leaving with our tails tucked between our legs. I bet that most of the uprising against the US is more against Bush and when Obama wins I am sure it will decrease. We will get our leases back and everything will be fine.
And I don’t have a mistrust of goverment. That’s what gets me so steamed about all this. I think government can and should do good things. And when it doesn’t…steam.
We went to Iraq because of bad leadership. I don’t understand the “for the oil” because it is not like the US is selling the oil on the market. I guess you could say that we did it because we wanted to give Gov. contracts to big business. I bet it was more Bush didn’t like Saddam had an agenda from the beginning to get him and saw the opportunity used the fear of 9/11 and got him.
“why the military? - why does it have to be a military base?” I feel it is because the Military are our guardians AS WELL AS our country’s “Labor Force” so if a country wants “hands to help”, the military are our hands and cheap labor force at that.
“can’t our government give just as much money” and as for this, would you just hand your neighbor $25,000.00 (which you had to give away) to buy a new car because a tree fell on his, no. You would want to be paid back in some way and if he couldnt pay you, wouldn’t you work out a deal for some kind of barter..like he has a built in pool with an outdoor kitchen and he said “I can’t pay you back, but you can use this anytime you want for the next 30 years” you wouldnt use it? Its all relative.
Fine you have a mistrust of this Gov. which is fine, but these bases have been there for longer then Bush and most of them will be there long after him. I am not naive enough to believe that none of the bases help further US interests in the country but I also do not believe they are all there for harm.
justin… - you still haven’t answered the question of why it has to be the military who sets up shop… - why the military? - if our government truly wants to help other countries and has the money to do so… - surely… - a military base isn’t the only possible solution…
Because there is no other organization in the world that has the equipment and resources that the Military has. Unfortunately.
I wish there was like a peace organization that had the comparable might but there is not.
“First of all, Saddam Hussein could not have easily been the world’s next Hitler. He didn’t know how to marshall the machinery of his nation to bring them out of the “dark age” that post-WW I Germany was in, nor was he a leader with a rabid cadre of devoted followers. He was a strong man holding onto power by the tip of his knife, and the slightest paranoid misstep would have sent him tumbling into an unmarked grave in the Iraqi desert.” -
Iraq invades kawait 1991 = Germany invades poland 1939. He defeated Iran. He knew how to win wars, he was already in power so he didn’t need to Marshall anything like Hitler, he was already there. Hitler also held onto power by the end of a luger and still conquered almost all of Europe and North Africa.
“Second, the world doesn’t need a “police man.” It needs a community of concerned countries (which are each just communities of people) who can work together to solve the great issues of our time.”-
Community of concerned countries = UN, which didn’t help Darfur and Somalia
“We’re not “paying” for those resources. We’re taking them. If we’re “paying” anyone, it’s the multinational corporations who claim to “own” those resources, not the citizens who actually live in the countries where those resources are located. You think the average Iraqi is seeing any money from the oil we’re getting? Maybe they will in terms of governmental improvements to infrastructure, but with a $79 billion surplus in Iraq’s coffers right now, they don’t seem to be willing to spend it.”-
We are paying them…so now it’s the US’ fault the Iraqies are not willing to spend it on infastructure? Like you said WE ARE PAYING.
“And if we’re not “just invading and taking,” WHAT THE HELL DID WE GO INTO IRAQ FOR?” -
Like you said, we are paying, its not our responsibilty how the payee spends their money. And this is one thing I agree with you on, We should have never invaded Iraq. I agree with invading and destorying the taliban and Afganastan, but we should have gotten Osama and help rebuild that country and got out…
Oh and that is because the people of the US would rather pay with the taxes for protection (military) and not helping. The mechanic barely making ends meet paying taxes is probably not going to want to fund a base in one of the -stans there to help when a earthquake happens. Again unfortunately.
Shawn has a point there Kyle (I originally dismissed it), if we(mostly US) didn’t stop him when he was in Kuwait I wonder what would have happened. Iraq’s Oil + Kuwaits Oil is a lot of money and money buys a lot of charisma.
Then again maybe Obama would of stopped him and then would not of hated the US then 9/11 never would have happened.
Oh and this has been some good dialogue. See Dave I knew you could do it. ;)
[Edited by Moderator: Off topic comments]
“Shawn has a point there Kyle (I originally dismissed it)”, thanks Justine…no backup from the only other realist on this panel!
i still don’t see why it has to be the military… - or why it is that the military gets to be the one that has the money to do so… - the military are basically people with guns… - and a military base represents a military… - not a workforce or a labor camp or a soup kitchen… - our military basically represents an intimidation when it lands on foreign land… - even if it’s there to help initially…
[Removed by Moderator: Off topic comment]
Sometimes it takes guns to help (as it would in darfur and in kosovo) so instead of having two different branches of helping they just make one.
and shawn… - you didn’t have to start calling kyle and i unrealistic… - that’s a little fox newsy…
[Edited By Moderator: Off topic comments]
David and Kyle I respect your convictions and opinions but sometimes I think they are a little unrealistic thats all. I also agree with you on certain subjects…its just not as fun to respond to those posts.
We’re being unrealistic? This country is in an unfathomable amount of debt, but you think we should keep maintaining our empire by taking out loans from the Chinese that our great-great-great grandchildren are never going to be able to pay off.
Yeah, we’re the one’s being unrealistic.
[Removed By Moderator: Off topic comment]
Maybe if our GNP was low then I would agree that the debt is unfathomable. I am in no way saying that we are in great shape just that it is not end of the empire bad. Our empire will be fine thanks for the concern.
[Removed by Moderator: Off comment topic]
Actually Justin…Shawn doesn’t have a point. “We” didn’t stop Saddam in 1991. The world did.
This is not to say we didn’t supply a huge percentage of the forces that fought in the original Desert Storm (using higher estimates of the Coalition Forces, the U.S. made up ~73% of the Coalition). Instead, it is say that the world at large supported the first Gulf War (if not with men and materials, then at least with rhetoric).
This is where Bush I and Bush II differed. Bush Sr. understood the necessity of acting as a member of the larger world community. He didn’t shirk from the knowledge that we were a super-power, but he used that super-power to drum up support for our actions.
Bush Jr., on the other hand, flaunted that super-power, using it to bully weaker nations into an ironically named “Coalition of the Willing” (with a close connection between the U.S. outlays of foreign aid and the countries who joined the coalition, one reporter called it ‘the Coalition of the Billing‘).
Additionally, a Gallup International poll taken before the outbreak of the war found that, “In general, a war against Iraq declared unilaterally by the US and its allies does not receive much public support[,] approximately half of the citizens in the world are not in favour of military action against Iraq under any circumstances.”
–
On the question of the United States being the sole superpower:
In a recent article about Dukakis’ run for President in 1988, the former governor of Massachusetts said that one of the reasons he lost is that “They accused me of being a multilateralist…It almost sounded pornographic at the time. But I am. I don’t see how you can not be and seriously look at the world and provide any meaningful leadership. As soon as we started calling ourselves the world’s only remaining superpower, we were in big trouble. The Greeks have a word for it - hubris.”
If the US was not the power it was/is the countries of the world that did fight against Saddam might not have won. Or it would of taken years to get him out of Kuwait.
I am not saying that the Hitler/Saddam connection is 100% accurate just that it is an interesting angle that I did not see at first. If there was a military power, like the US today, pre ww2 maybe Hitler gets stopped in Poland like Saddam in Kuwait. Thats all I am saying.
I think that’s fair.