Your first sentence is so far from off it proves you have no idea what youre talking about. Pleaae tell me how we can launch an attack anywhere in one hour?

 

there is no constitutional provision for a lot of the things we do, but we still do them. the use of overseas bases is constitutional to the extent that it does not conflict with language in the constitution, explicit or implied.

you make a good point about trade, or rather, ron paul does. trading obviously helps with foreign relations. however, your point about cuba is misleading. though the united states does not trade much with cuba, just about the rest of the world does. the general shittiness of their country can be attributed to poor policies and the fact that it has a command economy, not the american embargo on cuba. if you continue to cite lack of trade as the leading factor in cuba's economic demise, consider the fall of the soviet union, aka cuba's former largest trading partner.

 

do not bases in foreign lands contribute to the quick-response capability of our military? and sure, we can bomb them whenever, but wouldn't it be better to be more precise with our engagements through the use of infantry and ground forces so as to avoid unnecessary destruction and civilian casualties?

 

You said we could attack from America. Also, the navy positions itself days if not weeks in advance before launching an attack. ALSO you cant deploy 100,000 soldiers from a boat.like i have said so many times before... you dont know **** about the military and you dont know **** about the world outside of our sheltered borders. The more you post the more you prove my point.

 

Even a high school ROTC cadet knows you cant launch an offensive in an hour. You dont have to be a general to know how the military works.. you just have to be slightly more intelligent than a retard.

 

Right. And we should not do them. The use of overseas bases while not in a constitutionally-declared war is unconstitutional. We are subsidizing other nations' defense. We need to close the bases and bring the troops home. There's no debate about this.

I'm merely stating that U.S. trade with Cuba would probably gradually lead to it becoming more free.

 

Stop with the neo-con arguments.

The reason why you think we "need" overseas military bases to allow for "quick response" is because the U.S. federal government is a warmonger. It unconstitutionally uses military operations far more than it should. Going to war or engaging in warfare should not be something done so lightly. We don't need bases overseas unless we are in a constitutionally-declared war. If the nation of Jackass-istan wants to attack the U.S. directly, then it will, Congress will declare war, and we will establish such operations that will lead to inevitable and unquestionable victory. The problem is that hasn't happened in decades. Now, the U.S. federal government claims "interest" overseas to inject itself into military conflict. American "interest" can be defined however the politicians, bureaucrats, and military industrial complex desire. It should be objective, as in constitutional, and based on direct conflict to U.S. soil.

Asymmetrical warfare is a different matter. But we should not sacrifice an inch of our personal freedom and liberty in our defense.

 

I like newt. I like his experience and I like his sense of humor. I'll vote for whoever opposes Obama though.

 

Ugh I had a fairly long post to explain just why we should keep bases overseas but my computer crashed. But basically to fight an insurgency you have to build trust with the people and provide stability to the government in that country. This is why we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long, and why we need to maintain bases there. Over time the life on these bases will become more like life on bases in Germany, Japan, etc. But I guess everyone would love to gloss over the fact that even the ***** wanted to wage a counterinsurgency.
You can't just destroy a countries military with the push of a few buttons, and then think that you will be safe. You can't even just help people throw out a foreign military and think you're good, because otherwise we wouldn't have needed to be in Afghanistan. You have to maintain goodwill, and sometimes that requires money to be spent. Still cheaper than going to war.

 

I agree that we need over seas bases to protect ourselves and our allies. It is a necessity and it is welcomed by our allies and the the locals (generally speaking). However, Iraq was a lost cause. And i am speaking from personal knowledge ... the entire population of Iraq was is lazy, arrogant, and barbaric. They will easily fall under another dictator and no matter how much America does for those people they will never change. The only exemption to this are the Kurdish in northern Iraq. I hope and pray that they will gain independence from Iraq. I think we should have helped them with that, but our military didnt want to show favoritism.

 

its not the 1st time we left the Kurds out in the cold...I hope they do gain independence as well.

 

tell me where in the constitution it says we cannot have military bases overseas? overseas bases do not conflict with anything in the constitution, therefore they are constitutional. yes, we are subsidizing defense but the bases do much more than that. lastly, there clearly is debate about this because we've had bases overseas since the '40s.

no, trade with cuba would not lead to them being more free. like i said before, most of the major world powers trade with cuba and the people are still not free. why would american trade be any different? moreover, why do you assume there is causality between trade and freedom? who do you think owns the means of production in cuba? it's not the people.

well, in addition to serving as clearing houses for information, supplies, and personnel, bases contribute to the world in the following ways i can think of off the top of my head:

-they serve as forward operating bases from which to launch campaigns
-they ensure stability by maintaining a powerful presence in any given region
-they ensure the free flow of commodities such as oil to the global market
-they serve as jumping points for disaster relief campaigns
-they promote trade
-they help combat piracy and drug running
-they help train foreign militaries, police, and intelligence agencies and promote cooperation
-they help our own troops by allowing them to train in more realistic environments as well as allowing linguists and intelligence specialists to become more familiar with local dialects, customs, and traditions
-they financially support foreign governments as well as local economies
-they enhance america's soft power by exposing foreigners to our culture/increase pro-american sentiment


the constitution says that congress has the power to declare war. whether or not that requires a piece of paper with "declaration of war" written on it is open for debate. this is a classic example of separation of powers intended to keep the president in check by disallowing him from entering whatever conflict he desires. if congress takes a vote and allows for the president to engage a particular enemy, that is good enough for me. such was the case for the iraq war, the war in afghanistan, the first gulf war, and vietnam.

i find your "warmongering" comment interesting. it's true that national interests have been a driving force for u.s. foreign policy since the beginning. cold war era "policing" notwithstanding, what are some examples of the united sates engaging in combat over unjust or nefarious "interests". also, you say that war should be based solely on attacks on u.s. soil. how, then, do you justify either of the world wars, the first gulf war, or the war in afghanistan? or are these all examples of american warmongering?

 

We won in Iraq. The insurgent presence is practically nothing compared to what it once was. I agree about most of the population being lazy, but the key is that they trust our troops and their governments troops. Also if we ever have to fight Iran, Iraq will may be a powerful ally.

 

I think we can all agree that the military might of any country pales in comparison to America. That being said, these forward operating bases are simply unnecessary. In these days of satellite reconnaissance, drone strikes, ICBMs, and aircraft with incredible range, there's no need to be right next to a hostile country's border. Look at where our money is going!



It's foreign aid under a different name, and the American people don't realize that is the bases' true purpose. By having a base in a foreign country, you're guaranteeing that, near the base, there will always be open restaurants, bars, entertainment, prostitutes, drugs, etc... anything to get a portion of a soldier's pay while he's over their on duty. It's foreign aid, plain and simple.

 

I would not be so sure about that..The Shiites are now the dominant power in Iraqs government and Iran is predominantly Shiite. They have also normalized relations as soon as Saddam was ousted and swinging from a rope. Trade between Iran and Iraq has also grown considerably, there would be economic repercussions as well. I doubt Iraq would ever pubicly side with Iran in a future conflict with the US, but I would not expect much in the way of support either.

 

I 100% disagree with every single word.

1. We should not need bases in other countries "just in case." Our military might need not be right next door to kick some ***.
2. a powerful presence where it is not welcome is called a bully.
3. Wrong. Money ensures the free flow of oil and commodities. I have money, I'll trade you for some oil. That's how it works. No one needs a gun pointed at their head to trade properly.
4. Since when is it our job to spearhead disaster relief campaigns across the globe?
5. They do not promote trade. Money promotes trade. See #3.
6. Since when is it our job to stop the heroin trade in the middle east? Do some research and you'll see our troops are encouraging the production of poppy plants to get along with the locals. At the very least it's hypocritical, if not discriminatory for helping the farmers who produce it but arrest everyone else involved. Bullshit.
7. Why is it our job to train the world's police?
8. Clearly we've done a great job absorbing the local customs. It's OK to burn the Qaran, right? Wrong.
9. We should NOT be financially supporting other governments or local economies. That money should be fixing OUR roads in America, not theirs.
10. This is not happening. America is quickly becoming the fat bully of the world with no friends.

Let's call a spade a spade. Our foreign policy is fucked, and people are being killed because of our interference.

 

3.4, I understand some of the points that you are making. There is however 1 thing that you are completely under minding. It is a fact that our military power, speed, force capability to repond to any threat anywhere, and abundance of allied forces protect our borders and our allies. The american public lives inside of an extremely sheltered bubble and there for has a very naive outlook on the world outside our borders.

 

Saying that our bases cause tension is like saying that police cause tension when they parltrol neighborhoods. We wouldnt have criminals if the police werent pissing people off?

 

Find in the constitution where it says we can not. You know what is in the costitution? The ability to amend it.

 

Are you saying that if the Constitution doesn't say the federal government cannot have a particular power, then it automatically does?



When the Constitution refers to the United States, it means the federal government. It identifies three distinct entities, the federal government, the State governments, and the people.