One by one, just like dominoes, the conservative base of the party is breaking ranks with the spiraling out of countrol, government expenditures on our defense programs.

Spending future tax payer money to maintain our presence aroung the world is simply money poorly spent. Maybe Pat is just a closet code pinker that has placed country over party, no?

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/02/23/liquidating_the_empire?page=2

Uh, this has been Pat's position for quite some time. It isn't some new "revelation."

fish82 wrote: Uh, this has been Pat's position for quite some time. It isn't some new "revelation."

Beat me to it.

716 bases in 38 countries is ridiculous. Keeping a strategic presence in a few places in the world is probably wise, but we could get rid of 90% of those bases and still have the presence that we need for security purposes.

If we want to balance the budget, military spending HAS to be cut. There is no need for us to spend 10x more than the next closest country on defense.

fish82 wrote: Uh, this has been Pat's position for quite some time. It isn't some new "revelation."

But he wrote the article yesterday. I think it important that conservatives understand that being against the expanding empire, does not make one a spokesperson for code pink.

I say we go old school and charge tribute on all of the countries where we have bases

C'mon Footie. Nothing new here about PB.

Plus there are plenty of conservatives (myself included) think it's high time that the Europeans, Japanese, etc. pay for their own friggin defense.

I've seen number on bases in different countries, but no one really defines or expands on the numbers. Where are the bases, how many people are roughly at each base, what is the mission for each base, how long has the base been there, etc? Not knocking the numbers, just I'd like more information.

Ptowne, most of what you ask can be easily found on the internet. Just last year, we built another base in Italy. We have a military presence in 75% of the countries around the globe.

That is pretty ridiculous, considering we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt. By the responses above, it appears that apathy is the name of the game when it comes to the vast military arm of the US.

Both the left and the right love to quote the forefathers, the constitution, and the bill of rights when defending their own views. Well, I could rattle off a bunch of quotes from JQ Adams, TJ and others, who cried foul as it relates to American Empire and international interventionalism.

Al Quada and other radical fundamentalist terrorist groups have sighted this American hubris and exceptionalism as the paramount reason for wanting us dead. The international community at large denounces the American empire. But we pay no heed. We are blind to the American economic costs of running an Empire, and moreover, don't give a shit what anyone else thinks anyway.

Bush 43 campaigned in 1999 that he wanted to put a stop to expansionistic endeavors. He denounced nation building and foreign occupations. He said any war should be well planned with exit plans in place. But once in office, the military machine got a hold of him and pretty much told him how the game is played.

RiverRat13 wrote: I say we go old school and charge tribute on all of the countries where we have bases

Actually, some of the countries do pay us nominal fees. It's nice that they do. A better option would be to bring them home where they belong.

believer wrote: C'mon Footie. Nothing new here about PB.

Plus there are plenty of conservatives (myself included) think it's high time that the Europeans, Japanese, etc. pay for their own friggin defense.

Then if that's how you feel personally, why do you have an issue with my post? I think it is important that conservatives have their voice heard on this issue.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: 716 bases in 38 countries is ridiculous. Keeping a strategic presence in a few places in the world is probably wise, but we could get rid of 90% of those bases and still have the presence that we need for security purposes.

If we want to balance the budget, military spending HAS to be cut. There is no need for us to spend 10x more than the next closest country on defense.

We have a military presence in 140 countries around the world.

To the Mods...please correct my spelling error on the title of my thread. It's annoying. :d. Thanks.

^^^I I dunno....My head sometimes feels like it has been liqyidated after a day at the office....or posting in the politics forum!

Footwedge wrote:

fish82 wrote: Uh, this has been Pat's position for quite some time. It isn't some new "revelation."

But he wrote the article yesterday. I think it important that conservatives understand that being against the expanding empire, does not make one a spokesperson for code pink.

And you need to understand that ONE PERSON expressing a view outside the "norm" (whatever that is) of conservative politics doesn't mean the entire movement is falling apart.

Even if it is wishful thinking on your part.

Footwedge wrote: Ptowne, most of what you ask can be easily found on the internet. Just last year, we built another base in Italy. We have a military presence in 75% of the countries around the globe.

That is pretty ridiculous, considering we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt. By the responses above, it appears that apathy is the name of the game when it comes to the vast military arm of the US.

Both the left and the right love to quote the forefathers, the constitution, and the bill of rights when defending their own views. Well, I could rattle off a bunch of quotes from JQ Adams, TJ and others, who cried foul as it relates to American Empire and international interventionalism.

Al Quada and other radical fundamentalist terrorist groups have sighted this American hubris and exceptionalism as the paramount reason for wanting us dead. The international community at large denounces the American empire. But we pay no heed. We are blind to the American economic costs of running an Empire, and moreover, don't give a shit what anyone else thinks anyway.

Bush 43 campaigned in 1999 that he wanted to put a stop to expansionistic endeavors. He denounced nation building and foreign occupations. He said any war should be well planned with exit plans in place. But once in office, the military machine got a hold of him and pretty much told him how the game is played.

Footwedge wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: 716 bases in 38 countries is ridiculous. Keeping a strategic presence in a few places in the world is probably wise, but we could get rid of 90% of those bases and still have the presence that we need for security purposes.

If we want to balance the budget, military spending HAS to be cut. There is no need for us to spend 10x more than the next closest country on defense.

We have a military presence in 140 countries around the world.

Really? 140? There are 190 or so countries in the world.
I doubt that. Now, define "presence". Are they advisers to the local military, do they help coordinate weapon systems? There various degrees of presence, so one cannot equate Ramstein in Germany to a small outpost of advisers in Paraguay.

Most of the bases have a good rational-logistics. It is what makes a military run. I know libertarians do not like military overseas, but in today's world of go anywhere any time, the U.S. needs to have some sort of presence overseas where we can effectively utilize our forces.

I also think the bases need to be cut back, but before we go saying cut them all, we need to really examine the purpose of a base or presence-does it serve a purpose, what purpose, what are the plans to use it in war or to support alliances, etc.

I know you will throw out quotes from the 19th century, but that was a different world. Now, we are more interconnected, force can be projected anywhere and the U.S. has interests in almost every aspect of the globe. We need to have the ability to use our forces to protect our interests anywhere we need to. If that includes bases or installations in countries that allow us, and can help our logistics, then so be it.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Ptowne, most of what you ask can be easily found on the internet. Just last year, we built another base in Italy. We have a military presence in 75% of the countries around the globe.

That is pretty ridiculous, considering we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt. By the responses above, it appears that apathy is the name of the game when it comes to the vast military arm of the US.

Both the left and the right love to quote the forefathers, the constitution, and the bill of rights when defending their own views. Well, I could rattle off a bunch of quotes from JQ Adams, TJ and others, who cried foul as it relates to American Empire and international interventionalism.

Al Quada and other radical fundamentalist terrorist groups have sighted this American hubris and exceptionalism as the paramount reason for wanting us dead. The international community at large denounces the American empire. But we pay no heed. We are blind to the American economic costs of running an Empire, and moreover, don't give a shit what anyone else thinks anyway.

Bush 43 campaigned in 1999 that he wanted to put a stop to expansionistic endeavors. He denounced nation building and foreign occupations. He said any war should be well planned with exit plans in place. But once in office, the military machine got a hold of him and pretty much told him how the game is played.

Footwedge wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: 716 bases in 38 countries is ridiculous. Keeping a strategic presence in a few places in the world is probably wise, but we could get rid of 90% of those bases and still have the presence that we need for security purposes.

If we want to balance the budget, military spending HAS to be cut. There is no need for us to spend 10x more than the next closest country on defense.

We have a military presence in 140 countries around the world.

Really? 140? There are 190 or so countries in the world.
I doubt that. Now, define "presence". Are they advisers to the local military, do they help coordinate weapon systems? There various degrees of presence, so one cannot equate Ramstein in Germany to a small outpost of advisers in Paraguay.

Most of the bases have a good rational-logistics. It is what makes a military run. I know libertarians do not like military overseas, but in today's world of go anywhere any time, the U.S. needs to have some sort of presence overseas where we can effectively utilize our forces.

I also think the bases need to be cut back, but before we go saying cut them all, we need to really examine the purpose of a base or presence-does it serve a purpose, what purpose, what are the plans to use it in war or to support alliances, etc.

I know you will throw out quotes from the 19th century, but that was a different world. Now, we are more interconnected, force can be projected anywhere and the U.S. has interests in almost every aspect of the globe. We need to have the ability to use our forces to protect our interests anywhere we need to. If that includes bases or installations in countries that allow us, and can help our logistics, then so be it.

Yes, military presence in 140 countries. And I agree that today's world is a lot different than it was in the late 18th century.

But the excuse of "protecting our interests" is horribly misapplied and abused by the military speaking arm.

To suggest carte blanche removal of every military operation is definitely a reach, I agree. I don't think Buchanan is suggesting as much anyhow. But when the country perpetuates 2 endless wars without an endgame (sorry, COIN is a frieking farce), one going on 7 years, the other 9, it's time to do a little self auditing on what we can and cannot afford to do.

The expansion of the military throughout the globe has much more to do with keeping the masses employed and the government military machine churning in a denigrated private industrial world. It has very little to do with actually protecting Americans.

It's a ruse....a ruse that DD Eisenhower clearly warned us about...and his forebodence was very clairvoyant on his part.

Acron has 48 office in America just think of the money saving if those where closed

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really? 140? There are 190 or so countries in the world.
I doubt that. Now, define "presence". Are they advisers to the local military, do they help coordinate weapon systems? There various degrees of presence, so one cannot equate Ramstein in Germany to a small outpost of advisers in Paraguay.

Most of the bases have a good rational-logistics. It is what makes a military run. I know libertarians do not like military overseas, but in today's world of go anywhere any time, the U.S. needs to have some sort of presence overseas where we can effectively utilize our forces.

Whether we need them is really irrelevant when we can't afford them.

And no, we need maybe 2-3 overseas bases. Time to dismantle the empire.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really? 140? There are 190 or so countries in the world.
I doubt that. Now, define "presence". Are they advisers to the local military, do they help coordinate weapon systems? There various degrees of presence, so one cannot equate Ramstein in Germany to a small outpost of advisers in Paraguay.

Most of the bases have a good rational-logistics. It is what makes a military run. I know libertarians do not like military overseas, but in today's world of go anywhere any time, the U.S. needs to have some sort of presence overseas where we can effectively utilize our forces.

We don't need to "go anywhere any time". That's absurd.

If we can get down to specific bases and personal movements from different countries, I think we can agree more than disagree. I would still like a list of the 140 countries and how many U.S. military personal are in each though.

As to what bases to maintain in the near future: Germany, South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Italy, Turkey, Diego Garcia, Thule in Greenland, Kyrgyzstan, Spain, the UK, and Guam. All of these bases serve either alliance coordination points, or logistical areas to maintain present and foreseeable future military operations.

The ones in Asia to check and maintain a deterrent capability with China and North Korea, the ones in Europe to continue to maintain NATO, check the Russians and assure Eastern European allies in the foreseeable future. The ones in Central Asia and the Middle East/ Turkey to check Iran, and also ensure Iraq and Afghanistan do not fall into chaos once the U.S. leaves. Thule, Diego Garcia, and Guam also serve as B52 and B2 bases for our nuclear and conventional long range capabilities.

Once we get past those, I'm game on shutting bases or shifting personal over. Also, I think the U.S. does need to go anywhere anytime, given that we are the only country capable of doing it and whether you like it or not, the world has not moved technologically in military capabilities, since Rwanda. So, if there is a crisis somewhere, I want our boys to be able to fly anywhere and go kinetic in 24 hours.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: If we can get down to specific bases and personal movements from different countries, I think we can agree more than disagree. I would still like a list of the 140 countries and how many U.S. military personal are in each though.

As to what bases to maintain in the near future: Germany, South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Italy, Turkey, Diego Garcia, Thule in Greenland, Kyrgyzstan, Spain, the UK, and Guam. All of these bases serve either alliance coordination points, or logistical areas to maintain present and foreseeable future military operations.

The ones in Asia to check and maintain a deterrent capability with China and North Korea, the ones in Europe to continue to maintain NATO, check the Russians and assure Eastern European allies in the foreseeable future. The ones in Central Asia and the Middle East/ Turkey to check Iran, and also ensure Iraq and Afghanistan do not fall into chaos once the U.S. leaves. Thule, Diego Garcia, and Guam also serve as B52 and B2 bases for our nuclear and conventional long range capabilities.

Once we get past those, I'm game on shutting bases or shifting personal over. Also, I think the U.S. does need to go anywhere anytime, given that we are the only country capable of doing it and whether you like it or not, the world has not moved technologically in military capabilities, since Rwanda. So, if there is a crisis somewhere, I want our boys to be able to fly anywhere and go kinetic in 24 hours.

Fair enough. Keep the ones you listed open. Shut the rest of them down.

Again, whether you think we need all those bases or not doesn't matter. We cannot afford to keep those bases.

We face no traditional military threats in the world right now. We do not need to maintain over 700 military posts throughout the world in order to deal with terrorists.

Amazing how people didn't learn from Rome. Oh well, our empire will collapse soon enough and then everyone will sit back and wonder why.