Totenkopf Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Easy enough....turn around and don't look back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 exactly, many of these bases were established in major wars for countries that could not protect themselves and were allies, or countries that were vital points in waging war. After the war, many war-ravaged countries needed the US to stick around to help them rebuild and keep contro Oh yeah, that's why we have bases in places that don't need any help? Germany for an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world? No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year. Sorry for the double-post but this topic so so active that my reply to this would probably be unseen. It has happened many times before to other countries/empires, how could it not happen again? And if you really think that the people have any say in elections, then you should think again. If you didn't notice by the 2001 Elections anybody can get into office if they have enough power. Al Gore won the elections and STILL George Bush gets elected. Now tell me how that is a democracy. This country has changed drastically my friend. Think about it, do you really think that the most powerful country in the entire world could be run by just ANYBODY? Which was a great system, has now turned into a corrupt agenda for money and power... like the Romans before us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The "supreeme law of the land" is mainly a "sleeping" law' date=' until someone enforces it it means little for states breaking it.[/quote'] But it can be easily used against us should another nation decided to do to us what we are doing to Iraq (aka War of Agression). In a way it can be said that we had it coming to us since we think that we are above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 JM12: In that case it's not in the U.S interest to do so. Leaders try to do what is in their own/their countrys interest (theese to often overlap), but they can't predict the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 If you didn't notice by the 2001 Elections anybody can get into office if they have enough power. Al Gore won the elections and STILL George Bush gets elected. Now tell me how that is a democracy. This country has changed drastically my friend. Think about it, do you really think that the most powerful country in the entire world could be run by just ANYBODY?[/Quote] WRONG. Gore did not win the election. He won the popular vote, but he did not win the election. Please, if you're going to say something like that, at least get it right! It has happened many times before to other countries/empires, how could it not happen again?[/Quote] Alright, lemme rephrase that. No democratically elected official that has a legislative branch will do something like that. Why? The Official will have to look out for his/her next term, and the legislative branch would probably make points by speaking out very strongly against the war... such as was happening in the US during our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Looks like I need to clarify my previous post... A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff. In post #60 you defined "base" differently...in your opinion, which definition do you believe to be more accurate? I'd be more willing to go with the definition in post #60 although admittedly it is wikipedia so it may not be 100% accurate. If you could provide a source for the alternate definition it would be appreciated. If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above. The list was actually taken from the source that was used in post #60. If you can offer an alternate definition I'd be more willing to go with that (distaste for wiki again, although it has been used a bit and may not be a bad launching point for finding information). Based on this comment I'm assuming you’re not 100% sold on the source previously used...? In addition to the quote below...all the quotes stated above are related to this as well, but I didn't want to fill my post with duplicate quotes. The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it. An interesting read...directly from the DOD. This document is from September 30 2004, however, I'm only noting the terminology used in relation to the installation size. Also, this is a fair sized (1.8 Megs) document to open in a browser so please be aware (not sure anyone is on dial-up anymore but just in case ). Bases: Thule Air Base - 138 active military were assigned, 2 civilians, 0 "others" Florennes Air Base - 7 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others" Karup Air Base - 4 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others" Forts: (only U.S. ones found in the document) Fort Lesley J McNair - 913 active military were assigned, 580 civilians, 191 "others" Fort Juan Muna (Guam) - 273 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others" Barracks: Campbell Barracks - 1,304 active military were assigned, 462 civilians, 236 "others" Barton Barracks - 126 active military were assigned, 130 civilians, 117 "others" Garrisons: US Army Garrison Selfridge - 154 active military were assigned, 65 civilians, 373 "others" Given the sizes of the installations/bases/forts we could easily have another 50 bases in Iraq without a large ground presence. In fact with these numbers we would only need 200 active military personnel to run 50 air bases (Although completely unlikely)...or 18,650 personnel to have 50 Barracks...my guess is that we would be somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning towards 18,000. Now, there are bases, forts, barracks, and garrisons with significantly more people attached to them, however, it would seem the number of people associated with them has no impact on how the installation is named, so the reporter referring to 50 bases in Iraq could actually be very accurate. Interesting to note...we have approximately 38 medium to large foreign installations. A medium to large installation is defined using the installations Plant Replacement Value (PRV) "which is the cost to replace these facilities using today’s construction costs" (DOD - 3, Page 4 (in adobe) - Portfolio Summary)...Kind of harsh in a way, but maybe we are looking at the wrong information in regards to how they really define a base/fort/installation/etc. Like they say...It's all about the benjamins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 WRONG. Gore did not win the election. He won the popular vote, but he did not win the election. Please, if you're going to say something like that, at least get it right! Of course he didn't win the election...look who is President... such as was happening in the US during our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. And that still went on... I fail to see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Of course he didn't win the election...look who is President.... Not sure why there's such a big issue on that point. It wasn't the first time that the electoral vote and the popular vote weren't on the same side. Also, you need more than the vocal opposition of a minority number of congress (house & senate) for such protests to halt policy decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.