PLAYER57832 wrote:I know one thing that really bothered me, it was young college students that were happy to live in this country (never knew any other), revelled in our freedom, took government assistance, but who refused to sign documents that they would support our constitution.
Are you talking about Vietnam?
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
Okay, let's assume all that is true (apart from the "hey, let's go rape some Japanese"). How does subjugation affect you negatively? Doesn't the US being the bad guy affect you in a positive fashion? Weren't the Joker's cronies positively affected when he robbed a bank?
It's hard to make friends in a world where you're the bully. Nearly most of these friendships are superficial, and many countries who outwardly support us have a lot of citizens against us. Our recent policy (past 40-50 years or so) has mainly been one of coercion, promoting the maintenance of corrupt and oppressive dictatorships, encouraging our large businesses and banks to engage in the manipulation of other countries' affairs by exploiting their people usually with the goal of forcing that country into debt, so the US can make more stringent demands. This by no means affects the US citizens in a positive manner; it's a route that just brings much hate and loathing directed towards Americans and the US government from pretty much everyone.
The US shouldn't put itself in that position. It should be a more understanding and less selfish nation, geared toward long-term planning to bring about a more peaceful environment. Granted, there are situations that require direct and strong intervention, but most of our actions have been done to the extreme, and this unnecessarily undermines our reputation as a peace-loving and freedom-spreading country.
The US has more or less been the Mafia on the international scene. That and your average Joe is indifferent because he's on a steady diet of good 'ol American BS. That's what I despise, and that's what I'd like to correct in a positive manner.
Exactly. That's pretty bare bones... but yeah.
In 2005 (I'm not gonna bother looking up stats anymore because my point isn't directly about the size) these United States operated:
*Bases by size
16 Large
22 Medium
699 Small
So that's 737 Bases in Foreign Countries. The size is calculated by the pentagon by their total replacement value. A large base costs $1.584 Billion; Medium have less than that total but more than $845 Million; Small cost less than $845 Million
Each of these bases requires a SOFA agreement (Statutes of Forces Agreement) with the host country.
In '05 we deployed 1,840,062 (including domestically), 473,306 defense Department Employees, and about 203,328 local hired help.In total, te Pentagon operated 29,819,492 Acres Worldwide.
This information, provided by the 2005 Base Structure Report falls drastically short however. It mentioned no bases/garrisons in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and finally, my favorite; Uzbekistan. Similarly, it omits known espionage installations in the UK.
I'm going somewhere with all of this, but you'd have to understand the SOFAs first and I just got bored.