|
On June 26 2011 14:54 Willes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 13:49 Wrongspeedy wrote:On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote:
I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now. It would cost more money to move all of our stuff home. There is no reason our troops shouldn't be stationed where they are. Most of those bases were established decades ago (after WWII). Most importantly they give our army "mobility". We are more mobile than other countries simply because we have more troops stationed in more places, ready to defend. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan, and SK governments couldn't give a shit about us, but that doesn't mean they are offended to have our troops stationed in their country (helping their economy). Do you learn this at your schools in the US? It has nothing to do with imperialism? Ok how about that, lets place troops from europe in the USA, to increase mobility if they need to defend your country. Lets say 50k-100k soldiers will be ok for the start. We build bases all around the USA, there is no reason to not do this. They will gain all the benefits you explained in your post, thats a good deal , huh? "Your" eco needs alot of help, so our troups are welcome, soon you dont have money for this hudge military, we support "you" , of course. It has nothing to do with imperialism, we jsut want to help your poor country, with a mobile, eco-helping force, sounds like a good deal for both sides, what do you think?
Do you even know what imperialism is? Good lord.
And there's absolutely no reason for any European country to have a base in the U.S considering we are basically Europe's defense against pretty much everything, so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.
|
Wow you really believe in your propaganda.
|
Do you even know what imperialism is? Good lord.
And there's absolutely no reason for any European country to have a base in the U.S considering we are basically Europe's defense against pretty much everything, so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.
- Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." -
You can google stuff for yourself the next time you think you need to tell us something. ^^
|
On June 26 2011 15:16 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 14:54 Willes wrote:On June 26 2011 13:49 Wrongspeedy wrote:On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote:
I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now. It would cost more money to move all of our stuff home. There is no reason our troops shouldn't be stationed where they are. Most of those bases were established decades ago (after WWII). Most importantly they give our army "mobility". We are more mobile than other countries simply because we have more troops stationed in more places, ready to defend. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan, and SK governments couldn't give a shit about us, but that doesn't mean they are offended to have our troops stationed in their country (helping their economy). Do you learn this at your schools in the US? It has nothing to do with imperialism? Ok how about that, lets place troops from europe in the USA, to increase mobility if they need to defend your country. Lets say 50k-100k soldiers will be ok for the start. We build bases all around the USA, there is no reason to not do this. They will gain all the benefits you explained in your post, thats a good deal , huh? "Your" eco needs alot of help, so our troups are welcome, soon you dont have money for this hudge military, we support "you" , of course. It has nothing to do with imperialism, we jsut want to help your poor country, with a mobile, eco-helping force, sounds like a good deal for both sides, what do you think? Do you even know what imperialism is? Good lord. And there's absolutely no reason for any European country to have a base in the U.S considering we are basically Europe's defense against pretty much everything, so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.
Just only, I was reading this article:http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato
|
On June 26 2011 15:26 Willes wrote:Show nested quote +
Do you even know what imperialism is? Good lord.
And there's absolutely no reason for any European country to have a base in the U.S considering we are basically Europe's defense against pretty much everything, so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.
- Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." - You can google stuff for yourself the next time you think you need to tell us something. ^^
Yes and do you think that having a mutual agreement to maintain troops on South Korean soil qualifies as "an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship"? Also, do you believe that the United States is "dominating or subordinating" SK or Japan? Seriously please take a minute to think about things before you post.
|
On June 26 2011 15:16 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 14:54 Willes wrote:On June 26 2011 13:49 Wrongspeedy wrote:On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote:
I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now. It would cost more money to move all of our stuff home. There is no reason our troops shouldn't be stationed where they are. Most of those bases were established decades ago (after WWII). Most importantly they give our army "mobility". We are more mobile than other countries simply because we have more troops stationed in more places, ready to defend. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan, and SK governments couldn't give a shit about us, but that doesn't mean they are offended to have our troops stationed in their country (helping their economy). Do you learn this at your schools in the US? It has nothing to do with imperialism? Ok how about that, lets place troops from europe in the USA, to increase mobility if they need to defend your country. Lets say 50k-100k soldiers will be ok for the start. We build bases all around the USA, there is no reason to not do this. They will gain all the benefits you explained in your post, thats a good deal , huh? "Your" eco needs alot of help, so our troups are welcome, soon you dont have money for this hudge military, we support "you" , of course. It has nothing to do with imperialism, we jsut want to help your poor country, with a mobile, eco-helping force, sounds like a good deal for both sides, what do you think? Do you even know what imperialism is? Good lord. And there's absolutely no reason for any European country to have a base in the U.S considering we are basically Europe's defense against pretty much everything, so your analogy makes absolutely no sense.
My biggest fear for the future is that, when China and India overtake the US, my country is going to be lumped in with it as the enemy. The US has less friends than it thinks and while policing the world might make it feel safe, its making other countries in those regions uncomfortable. We constantly hear about this percieved threat from China, and China's no virgin I'm not saying that, but which of the two countries has been more agressive towards the other in the last decade?
I would be an advocate of distancing ourselves from America, if we didn't have all of our Nuclear arms tied up under US control. When the world changes the least we could do is not be seen as America's whipping boy.
I don't know where we even got the idea that we needed to compete with the big boys in the world. We're on a shitty island, outside of our international relayions, what reason would somebody have for trying to invade us? I'd like my country to take a leaf out of Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland's book and realise that we actually have almost nothing of value to any country.
|
On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific. What the.... You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize
They have the JSDF, and according to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the army must only be strong enough to act in self defense. However, there has been controversy over what that entails exactly. And in Iraq, Japan sent troops at the request of the US, which was the first time since WW2 Japan had deployed troops abroad.
So basically, yes technically they aren't allowed to have a 'real' army, but in practice there is leeway around that. The only thing that is clear is that Japan definitely cannot possess nuclear arms.
Anyways I watched too much Ghost in the Shell.
|
On June 26 2011 17:13 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific. What the.... You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize They have the JSDF, and according to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the army must only be strong enough to act in self defense. However, there has been controversy over what that entails exactly. And in Iraq, Japan sent troops at the request of the US, which was the first time since WW2 Japan had deployed troops abroad. So basically, yes technically they aren't allowed to have a 'real' army, but in practice there is leeway around that. The only thing that is clear is that Japan definitely cannot possess nuclear arms. Anyways I watched too much Ghost in the Shell.
This.
Also, whenever any country invades another country, it's always for their "defense". The British eradicated the American Indian tribes in the defense of their settlers, the French in Indochina, the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the defense of their country, Japan invaded Korea and China in the defense of their economic interests. No country with any political sense will attack another country and declare it as expansionism. They always find a way to call it the defense of their country, so this restriction on Japan may as well be non-existent.
|
I really think we could pull out. We can't afford to have so many troops occupying other countries o.o
|
On June 26 2011 13:08 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 12:51 thoradycus wrote:On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend. China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW Indian was a result of disputed territories that existed even today. Did you know that after China dismantled India's force, it pulled back and didn't take any of the indian territories it could have occupied? vietnam was a result of the vietnam war in which it helped the communist side since the world at that time was communist vs non communist. Hardly expansionist since the goal was not to gain those territory but to help its communist ally gain control of the country. Neither conflict were geared toward gaining any sort of territory. Vietnam was a case of alliance help and India was a case of defend China's own territorial integrity. Expansionism at its core means gaining more territory. Another definition may be something like economical influence or other types of Sphere of influence. IMO the argument against china mainly is preventing it from annexing some parts of asia.
I don't know about china, and whether or not they are aggressive. I just wanted to say that with the same arguments one could claim that Nazi Germany was not aggressive expansionistic until the start of WW2. They were just "reclaiming disputed territory". Nearly no country will invade something and then say "Ha, its our now". They always make something up about how that territory was justily theirs all the time, and the others stole it before, and they are just taking it back.
|
On June 26 2011 14:39 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 13:44 dartoo wrote:On June 26 2011 13:08 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 12:51 thoradycus wrote:On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend. China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW Indian was a result of disputed territories that existed even today. Did you know that after China dismantled India's force, it pulled back and didn't take any of the indian territories it could have occupied? vietnam was a result of the vietnam war in which it helped the communist side since the world at that time was communist vs non communist. Hardly expansionist since the goal was not to gain those territory but to help its communist ally gain control of the country. Neither conflict were geared toward gaining any sort of territory. Vietnam was a case of alliance help and India was a case of defend China's own territorial integrity. Expansionism at its core means gaining more territory. Another definition may be something like economical influence or other types of Sphere of influence. IMO the argument against china mainly is preventing it from annexing some parts of asia. You make it sound like India was the aggressor, the reason for the war was china demanding territores that are a part of the Indian union when chinese map makers suddenly printed certain parts of India as china. It still continues to demand them, and continues random aggression (even in kashmir). The reason why china gave them up was due to intense international pressure, not the good of heart by china. Relation up to that point were very cordial and the aggression by china was seen to be an act of betraying friendship. And the fact that the PLA's strategic position was untenable, they've beaten the Indian army but it would be disastrous for them to cross into India proper. They were thousands miles far from Sichuan and when the winter sets it they would be cut off. Implying that China is non-aggressive or non-expansionist based on some pseudo history is naive at best. Have a look at the map of Imperial China from Song to present days and read up on Qian Long's 10 Great military deeds and tell me what is so special about the Chinese empire to say they are non-expansionist? China will flex their muscle when they see fit and rightly so due to its strength and position in the global affairs.
Perhaps it isn't really sensible to use ancient history to define a country's foreign policy today. Too many unaccounted for differences in context. By your argument, England is the most expansionist country in history and should be watched carefully lest they resurrect the empire on which the sun never sets.
|
I am sincerely in disbelief over the lack of realization of realpolitik that people have over the presence of the United States in foreign countries; yet I realize the entanglements that do come along with it. Most benefits that come with the presence that is embodied in military bases, logistics stockpiles in the form of pre-positioned warehouses of military hardware and ships and planes at points outside CONUS are not tangible in most ways, and are mostly of indirect benefit, thus the view that these commitments are monetary sinkholes, when in actuality, maintenance on these bases constitute a relatively lower share of the military budget than R&D for multiple, long-term programs and projects.
|
Ask yourselves this question. Is China any more aggressive/expansionist than other powerful countries? Especially those with border dispute with its neighbors?
|
On June 27 2011 02:25 trucejl wrote:
Ask yourselves this question. Is China any more aggressive/expansionist than other powerful countries? Especially those with border dispute with its neighbors?
There hasn't really been much of an expansionist war in the last few decades. So no country has actually engaged in that kind of behaviour.
All the ones i can think of have been a few decades ago and on a very small scale.
But i think since they took over Tibet that does put them pretty high on the list simply due to lack of competition.
|
Hmm..let's see. China has fought India over some disputed territory (1962) and has recently been building up in that region again. Has fought the old Soviet Union over disputed territory(1969). Invaded Vietnam in 1979. Invaded Tibet (1950). I can see why nations would be nervous. I don't think China is going to invade anyone anytime soon. But they seem willing to aggressively use their military and economic power to intimidate their neighbors. Standard power politics and consistent with Chinese foreign policy since well before the start of the 20th century.
North Korea is mostly a threat because of their WMD. Their soldiers are poorly trained and fed and most of their tanks date back to the 1950s. South Korea's army is well trained ahd has modern equipment. NK could still inflict tragic casualties in the opening stages of a war with their artillery, but that would not win them a war.
|
Without America, North Korea would plow through South Korea within a week. Every Korean knows this.
|
As a Canadian reading this title, my immediate thought was "What is the U.S doing in Saskatchewan?"
|
China is buying up loads of raw materials from South American and African countries, to begin developing their own carrier fleet to compete with Russia's and the United States'.
You can bet there's going to be an arms race in the near future.
On June 27 2011 11:34 Xpace wrote:
Without America, North Korea would plow through South Korea within a week. Every Korean knows this.
Is that why there's a pretty large political party in SK that advocates strengthening ties with NK towards reconciliation and removing US military bases from the country? If North Korea tried to invade South Korea they would advance at most a few hundred miles, and then immediately collapse under the weight of their own infrastructure, or rather, lack thereof. China will not assist NK in this day and age. If they would, NK would have already invaded.
|
On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:37 Skee wrote:
What do you mean fall under China's influence? Neither South Korea, Japan or China rely on eachother or any other asian country economically speaking and no, China is not going to go to war with them.... So I am having a problem understanding what you mean.
Like the above poster said, the most important reason for troops in South Korea is for the imminent fall of North Korea in the next 50 years. And even then, military-wise South Korea is pretty well off compared to North Korea. Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's
Actually, SK's Navy and Air Force is not only larger, but far more advanced than NK. NK just has more foot soldiers... which, would mean something say 50 years ago, but no.
The thing is, South Korea would probably 'win' in a war with the North, but at what cost? That's why they don't want to fight them, not because "north korea would plow through south korea" as another poster so eloquently put it.
|
The thing about NK vs SK is, we're not too sure of SK's ability to defend Nukes.
If they have the ability to neutralize all the nukes, then SK should be able to defend against NK.
If not, well, SK could have functional Gundam mech's but Nukes tend to be pretty helpful in winning a war...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
