Daily Kos

Does Obama have guts for global military change? Guam=Okinawa

Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:52:01 PM PDT

Does Obama have the guts to lead a change in our global military strategy? Are Iraq and Afghanistan merely giant pimples on a much greater obscenity that seems too big to focus on?

Per Al-Jazeera, as part of new defense strategy, the United States is currently spending billions of dollars to turn Guam into the new Okinawa.Two thirds of the estimated cost of $15 billion will be to relocate 8,000 soldiers from Okinawa. But it's the hardware that has the locals worried.

US building up Guam base

On the apron, old but still operational B-52 bombers... were standing by....The US outpost will see a whole array of the latest military hardware including nuclear-powered Trident submarines which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and unmanned Global Hawk spy aircraft.....By next year, the base will receive the latest state-of-the-art F-22 fighter jets, reflecting Guam’s strategic defence position in a volatile part of the world.

This buildup is a response to the perceived increased threat by North Korea and China, which has doubled its defense spending in recent years.

Lieutenant general Daniel Leaf, deputy commander of the US Pacific Command, said: "We are here to provide military defence and to deter aggressive activities by any group, terrorists or national entity... We want peace but we are also committed to overall well-being of the pacific community."

The US is sending a strong message to China: There's only one superpower left in this world and don't you forgit it.

A small group of Chamorrus, Guam's indigenous people, are less than enthused about having their tiny island take center stage in global geopolitics. They are worried that their new military high profile makes them a potential target.

Rumbo Chedo, a Chamorru activist, said his biggest concern were his children's safety.

"The whole of al-Qaeda and terrorists know that the military is moving here and expanding themselves," he told Al Jazeera.

Debbie Quinata, another Chamorru activist, said: "I think we really need to look at this picture and who are the terrorists because at this point they're terrifying us, they’re terrifying me, they’re terrifying my family."

There's another reason the people of Guam are less than enthused: they are being used to solve a messy problem. Okinawa in recent years has grown increasingly angered by the conduct of US servicemen. Two US servicemen were arrested in Okinawa in February 2008 for different incidents of rape:

Resentment towards the US military presence erupted this month following the arrest of a marine for the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl on the island of Okinawa, home to more than half of the 50,000 US troops in Japan.

Since then, US soldiers on the island have been arrested for trespassing and drink driving, and another is being questioned about the alleged rape of a Filipino woman in a hotel room.

The rape allegation has echoes of the 1995 gang rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US servicemen, which brought 85,000 people on to the streets in protest and international attention to the US base.

Rice says sorry for US troop behaviour on Okinawa as crimes shake alliance with Japan

Though the new commander of US forces in Japan, Lieutenant General Edward Rice, enacted a curfew of and promised "zero tolerance" of US servicepeople's crimes,  the locals are skeptical:

"This has been going on since the US began occupying our island decades ago," said Chie Miyagi, a schoolteacher and activist against the base. "The US military apologises and promises us that it won't happen again, but it always does. The government and the rest of Japan don't really care about how we feel. If it was their daughters who were being raped, I'm sure they would react differently."

Campaigners believe the marines on Okinawa will soon revert to their old ways once the curfew is lifted...

Okinawa is sick of the US presence, even as it depends almost completely on it for economic survival. The current economic downturn has muted protests, but the world is changing quickly. Japan and China are in the middle of a coming-together process. China and Taiwan are also embracing each other. A new economic powerhouse  of joint agreements is being formed. The Japanese will not need the United States in the same way. What easier way to solve the problem of disenchanted hosts to the US military than relocating 8,000 of them to a US territory that has zero political influence in the US?

[Miyagi's] anger is widely shared in Ginowan, the Okinawan city that is host to a sprawling marine corps air station. After the 1995 rape, in an attempt to relieve tension, the US and Japan agreed to relocate the air station to the island's sparsely populated north-eastern coast, but the plan is increasingly opposed by residents there.

The plan, scheduled for completion by 2014, would also see about 8,000 marines sent to Guam, a US territory in the Pacific about 3,700 miles south-west of Hawaii, in one of the biggest realignments of US troops for decades.

It makes strategic sense to relocate such a sizeable force and such military hardware to Guam, perhaps. But the $15 billion price tag, at a time when so many in the US are uninsured and relaying on food pantries to survive, and losing their homes at record rates, may perhaps help us to question our fundamentals. Per Professor Jules Dejour:

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

Now Guam will taste the fruits of being more than a fueling station.

When will ordinary US citizens become sick of propping up so-called "US interests" at the expense of any reasonable use of their tax money to make their own lives better?

Will Obama have the guts to start a real dialogue about just what the hell we are doing with military bases in 63 countries?

Dumb wars are dumb. An empire constructed to solidify the power and wealth of America's 1%, and that of their wealthy friends in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, is dumb, too, if you are the taxpayer paying for it, and the soldier who's pissing his life away overseas, away from his family for it. Or even worse, dying for it.

Poll

Is it pointless to hope Obama's election will cause a major shift in our very expensive need to run the world?

11%6 votes
9%5 votes
41%21 votes
23%12 votes
13%7 votes

| 51 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Guam, Okinawa, Military, Army, China, Japan, Teaching, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 60 comments

  •  This is where I actually agree with Nader. We nee (4+ / 0-)

    d to seriously carve a huge chunk out of our military expenses, and the mostly politically palatable way of doing so if to start closing some of the 100+ bases we have around the world.

    Lord knows that would be easier than closing bases in the US, which are a tremendous source of pork that is highly coveted by the local communities.

    Anything to start dismantling the military-industrial-congressional complex, although I doubt Obama will be willing to tackle that in his Presidency (one can dream), even it it would free up a ton of money for his other "dream" plans (i.e. universal healthcare, affordable schooling, etc., etc.).

    The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham

    by verasoie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM PDT

  •  that's my homeland! (4+ / 0-)

    I was born on Guam

    Andersen AFB actually.

  •  Guam is less usable than Okinawa (3+ / 0-)

    Militarily Guam is less usable than Okinawa; it's much further from any action - about 1,500 miles.

    It is politically much, much easier, as the rapes, while relatively rare, have been a lingering perception problem.

    This will put the base right next to Saipan ... which is a much worse source of human rights abuse than the occasional crimes on Okinawa.

    This has been coming a long time and I agree that $15B could be better used elsewhere ...

    •  Ya know, I read "Blowback" (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      and one of the most annoying assertions was that Okinawa had no strategic value.  Check a map, for chrissake.

      I imagine we'll still have a presence in Okinawa for the foreseeable future, though.

      There is, of course, an obvious solution to the rare -- but not as rare as they should be -- issue of rapes.  More women in the military (and allowing gays to openly serve.)

      WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

      by Anarchofascist on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:20:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MmeVoltaire, blueoasis

        There is, of course, an obvious solution to the rare -- but not as rare as they should be -- issue of rapes.  More women in the military (and allowing gays to openly serve.)

         Where in the world did this assertion come from?

        •  You don't think that having (0+ / 0-)

          a military that was approximately 50/50 male/female would have low incidences of sexual violence involving the local population where a base is located?  Or, for that matter, less houses of ill repute servicing the bases?

          Not that I see a 50/50 military in the offing any time soon, but were are talking about a Marine base of 20,000.  Throw 19,000 men and 1,000 women onto an island with a pre-existing local population, and there's bound to be sexual issues of at least some sort.

          WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

          by Anarchofascist on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes and no (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            MmeVoltaire

             Soldiers tend to be a younger population and island fever definitely strikes ... but I'd imagine prostitution is more of an issue than rape.

             I don't think a 50/50 mix and permitting open homosexuality is a cure for sexual predators making it into the military ...

            •  This conversation is probably long dead: (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              yoduuuh do or do not

              But I'm not suggesting it's a "cure" for sexual predators making it into the military.  And I'm certainly not "excusing" rape by saying that having a less overwhelmingly male population will lower rates.

              If I said "having more community programs that offer alternatives to the gang lifestyle will low rates of murder in the inner city" I'm not excusing murderers, am I?

              The city with the by far the highest rape rate in the U.S., by far, is Anchorage, which is also the city with, by far, the highest male/female ratio.  I don't believe that's coincidental, and I certainly don't believe that it's because sexual predators are particularly drawn to Anchorage.

              WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

              by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:19:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  French Foreign Legion solution? (0+ / 0-)

                They have their own whorehouses...

                Seriously, I do think that more legal prostitution venues near military bases would reduce rape incidents for several reasons:

                1. It reduces the number of men just looking to get laid who head into town and get themselves into ambiguous situations.
                2. It generally reduces the number of men heading into town looking for a good time and means that there are less opportunities for impulse attacks.

                It won't help with sexual predators like those three soldiers in Okinawa who kidnapped and raped a 12 year old girl - as their commanding officer remarked, it would have been cheaper for them to hire a prostitute than to rent the car they used for their attack.

      •  More women in militry, so they rape fewer locals? (4+ / 0-)

        Per Helen Bennett of Salon.com:

        I have talked to more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war in the past few months, interviewing them for up to 10 hours each for a book I am writing on the topic, and every one of them said the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.

        The female soldiers who were at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, for example, where U.S. troops go to demobilize, told me they were warned not to go out at night alone.

        "They call Camp Arifjan 'generator city' because it's so loud with generators that even if a woman screams she can't be heard," said Abbie Pickett, 24, a specialist with the 229th Combat Support Engineering Company who spent 15 months in Iraq from 2004-05. Yet, she points out, this is a base, where soldiers are supposed to be safe.

        Spc. Mickiela Montoya, 21, who was in Iraq with the National Guard in 2005, took to carrying a knife with her at all times. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," she told me. "It was for the guys on my own side."

        Comprehensive statistics on the sexual assault of female soldiers in Iraq have not been collected, but early numbers revealed a problem so bad that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered a task force in 2004 to investigate. As a result, the Defense Department put up a Web site in 2005 designed to clarify that sexual assault is illegal and to help women report it. It also initiated required classes on sexual assault and harassment. The military's definition of sexual assault includes "rape; nonconsensual sodomy; unwanted inappropriate sexual contact or fondling; or attempts to commit these acts."

        Unfortunately, with a greater number of women serving in Iraq than ever before, these measures are not keeping women safe. When you add in the high numbers of war-wrecked soldiers being redeployed, and the fact that the military is waiving criminal and violent records for more than one in 10 new Army recruits, the picture for women looks bleak indeed.

        Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark. The Army has called her charges unsubstantiated, but Karpinski told me she sticks by them. (Karpinski has been a figure of controversy in the military ever since she was demoted from brigadier general for her role as commander of Abu Ghraib. As the highest-ranking official to lose her job over the torture scandal, she claims she was scapegoated, and has become an outspoken critic of the military's treatment of women. In turn, the Army has accused her of sour grapes.)

        "I sat right there when the doctor briefing that information said these women had died in their cots," Karpinski told me. "I also heard the deputy commander tell him not to say anything about it because that would bring attention to the problem." The latrines were far away and unlit, she explained, and male soldiers were jumping women who went to them at night, dragging them into the Port-a-Johns, and raping or abusing them. "In that heat, if you don't hydrate for as many hours as you've been out on duty, day after day, you can die." She said the deaths were reported as non-hostile fatalities, with no further explanation.

        Not everyone realizes how different the Iraq war is for women than any other American war in history. More than 160,500 American female soldiers have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East since the war began in 2003, which means one in seven soldiers is a woman. Women now make up 15 percent of active duty forces, four times more than in the 1991 Gulf War. At least 450 women have been wounded in Iraq, and 71 have died -- more female casualties and deaths than in the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf Wars combined. And women are fighting in combat.

        Doesn't look as if increasing women in military decreases rapes. Maybe it makes the locals safer.

        •  You're still dealing with a population (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          kurt

          that's overwhelmingly male.  And yes, there are military culture issues at work, too.  But obviously more women in the military would help shift that culture.

          (And yeah, Karpinski is a really, really bad spokesperson to have for this very real issue.)

          WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

          by Anarchofascist on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:40:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There's much, much more than just (5+ / 0-)

      rare incidents of rape. Chalmers Johnson devotes an entire chapter in his book Nemesis to the grievances of the people on Okinawa against the US military and their dependents.

      "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger

      by truong son traveler on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I wasn't suggesting (2+ / 0-)

        that there aren't many, many legitimate grievances that the Okinawan people have about the base there.

        The SOFA should be way the hell better.  The base could use much less land for various concessions and amusements.  Basing that many Marines there is rooted in a very outmoded concept of force projection and unnecessary.  We have huge fucking deserts and miles and miles of our own coastline to use as firing ranges and don't need to do it at Okinawa.  And, frankly, it's kind of sad the Japanese government doesn't do more to stand up for Okinawans, which I sense is based partially on Ryukyuans different ethnic status.

        I was just specifically griping at his suggestion that it's not a strategically valuable island.

        WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:43:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Al-Jazeera as your source? (0+ / 0-)

    There are many others out there. It is not a secret. Much of Guam is looking forward to the economic boom of $15 billion.

    http://www.pbs.org/...

  •  While I'm certainly no fan of foreign military (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    bases (and God knows the UK has a few US ones dotted around the place), I don't think you can expect anything radical from a US president with regards to the subject. If you enjoy being a super power with all the domestic perks that comes with, then you need blue water capabilities and an air force that can operate globally. They may cut back here and there, but permanent military bases will probably be one of the last things to go even if the US completely collapses in dominance. I think the best you can hope for is that you only have limited military bases and shared facilities in countries that actually don't mind your presence (e.g. not Iraq).

    Will you be a Veeper Leaper?

    by Grass on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:34:18 AM PDT

  •  Basically (0+ / 0-)

    the way I see it is we have three choices:  Tell Okinawans to suck it, tell Guam (Guamians?  Guamites?  Guamers?) to suck it, or tell China "Yes, we'd love you to kick Taiwan in the balls!"  Not very good choices.

    •  Well, not really. (5+ / 0-)

      I lived on Okinawa for 7 years and I KNOW that the natives are sick of the American presence. They don't have to "suck it". We should leave Okinawa.

      As for Guam, same thing. They have a say in how the United States uses their lan. At least I would hope so. They don't have to "suck it" either.

      Concerning China and Taiwan, their relations have somewhat improved and it's really none of our business with what goes on between them anyway. The only way we'll get affected is if we get involved. We shouldn't.

      It's time for our country to decrease its scope and influence and mind its own business.

      •  I disagree wholeheartedly. (0+ / 0-)

        But you are clearly an isolationist and I am certain I will not convert you here.

        •  You are clearly a chickenhawk. (0+ / 0-)

          A cowardly armchair warrior who believes in projecting American power at any cost.

          Why don't you join the military? Or the Foreign Serivce? Or the Peace Corps? Why not be a mercenary?

          Yet I don't see you ever being stationed at any military bases or embassies. Power projection is so great when you're not the one doing it. You must feel so good about having other people die for your delusional causes.

          •  So all non-military non-isolationists (0+ / 0-)

            are Chickenhawks?  Obama is one?  President Clinton?  Any American who isn't for a isolationist, noninterventionist foriegn policy and isn't in the military is a chickenhawk?  That is the biggest pile of anti-democratic, if not fascist bullshit I've ever heard.  You may as well be Pat Buchannan, given how you are interested in boxing up and disenfranchising your country men.

            •  Yes. You sound more like a Republican. (0+ / 0-)

              A neo-con to be exact. Yes, Obama and Clinton are just as much of chickenhawks as Bush. You are a chickenhawk because you're pro-war yet you've never served in the military or experienced war yourself. Along with that, you're willing to send others to die and escalate wars in other nations because of your ideology. Just like Bush...

              The day you go and risk your own life to fight for these causes then I'll take it back. Our military can't and shouldn't police or babysit the rest of the world because people like you have these Wilsonian delusions that we can save the world.

              Contrary to what Chairman Mao said, freedom doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It's funny you believe that despite never having to risk your own life for those reasons.

              •  You are the anti-democratic radical (0+ / 0-)

                Movac, and the political extremist here.  I have no Wilsonian delusion we can save the world, I also don't have the selfish delusion we have no resposibilities to the world, and I certainly don't have the idiotic delusion America is an island unto itself and that our destinies are not tied up with those of our brothers outside our borders.  The fact I did not serve the military does not mean I am not a good citizen, does not mean I do not serve at all, and does not restrict my right as a citizen to hold political views about our foriegn policy, nor does it make all degrees and kinds of interventionist foriegn policy neo-conservatism.

                Additionally, Chairman Mao said POWER flows from the barrel of a gun, and he is most certainly right there.

                •  Glen Greenwald said it best about people like you (0+ / 0-)

                  Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the "chicken hawk" label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A "chicken hawk" is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.

                  Essentially, you don't really care about the people of Darfur or anywhere else for that matter. You can pat yourself on the back all you want say how humanitarian you, though you have no understanding of foreign affairs or war.

                  You are indeed a gutless coward and a hypocrite. You are the same ilk as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. You believe that our military can fix the rest of the world's problems. What a load of bullshit.

                  You expect other people, both in this country and elsewhere, to die for your self-serving, cowardly ideology.

                  It's funny you equate war as a humanitarian effort. Unless you get off your cowardly, war-mongering ass and go fight for your supposed ideals in Darfur or elsewhere, I suggest you re-examine your life.

                  I wouldn't be surprised if you support the Iraq War, come to think about it...

                  •  I am glad we've gone to the personal attack place (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes.  Like Bill CLinton, Barack Obama, and many, many other fine Democrats I am "chickenhawk",  gutless coward, and "without any understanding of foriegn affairs or war".  Hell, we ARE practically the same as BillO and Rush.  I am sitting here, talking about big a man I am smacking Bill's back, smoking his cigars and taking some of Rush's "medicine" while we talk about how we are brave to support these awesome wars.

                    Give me a freaking break.  I have never said I am as brave as a soldier, as honorable, or have the guts to be a volunteer soldier.  I have never equated my foriegn policy opinions with fighting a war, I merely said it is not immoral for me to hold them.  As far as knowledge of foriegn policy goes I don't think, from reading this diary, that either of us can make any judgements at all about the breadth of understanding either of us has about foriegn affairs.  Really, to me, its seems to me you want to put me in a box so you don't have to have an honest discussion, look at and accept the implications of you point of view, or do anything really but bludgeon us over the head with your position and use your admittably honorable and appreciated service just like John McCain.  So I ask you to get off your high horse, stop being a douchebag to people for having a difference of opinion with you, and have a discussion, or kindly shut the fuck up.

              •  Furthermore (0+ / 0-)

                so long as you enjoy firefighter or police protection and support continue to do so, or by deep sea fish, or order delivery pizza, all of which requires you to ask others to risk their lives for you while you've never done those things, your line of criticism is monstrously hypocritical

    •  Well, Guam is a U.S. territory, and although ... (3+ / 0-)

      ...it was grabbed along with other lands in the Spanish-American-Cuban War in '98, the U.S. can at least say that it's American-owned. Okinawa, on the other, hand remains Japanese. After 65 years, it's time to come home. And home from Korea, Germany and England as well.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:45:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, Pat Buchanan is Right! (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        iRobert

        Fortress America is the best strategy - get our troops back home.

        Were you a Palm Beach voter back in 2000?

        •  One need not be a xenophobic ... (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MmeVoltaire, A Simple Man

          ...isolationist and Nazi-enabler to oppose an imperialist foreign policy. How the U.S. wound up with those Okinawan, South Korea and German bases is one thing. But why it keeps them is something else. The U.S. has 800+ foreign bases. This serves us how?

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:23:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, you need to look at each one separately.... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            iRobert

            Okinawa is support for South Korea and an unsinkable aircraft carrier if we go to war with China.

            It provides us with presence in the Pacific that prevents the Chinese from turning the South China Sea into a Chinese lake.

            South Korea is a base against China and a trip wire to ensure that we go to war if North Korea attacks. We don't want to repeat the 1950s when North Korea apparently honestly believed that the US would not go to war to protect the South and therefore invaded.  As North Korea's military capabilities continue to deteriorate the US troops in South Korea are also much more likely to be able to really stop a North Korean attack, not just serve as a tripwire.

            Our German bases are there for the former Yugoslavia and as our Easternmost major presence - if we go into Georgia, Armenia, or Azerbaijan it will be from there.

            Any more questions?

            •  I have a question: will you enlist? (3+ / 0-)

              If war does break out in any of those areas, will you sacrifice your own comfort to fight in these places? Most likely not.

              Last time I checked, North Korea has an out of date military and South Korea, even without U.S. military bases, is perfectly capable of defending itself. Even Japan is capable of defending itself nowadays.

              China is at peace with its neighbors and there's no reason to provoke it. Unless that's what you want.

              Have you ever lived on Okinawa? Most likely not.

              Lastly, there's no good reason to have bases in Europe. Serbia is contained and certainly not a threat to anyone. Russia has issues with Georgia, but it's not a threat to national security and none of our business. From the looks of it, our country is threatening Russia, not the other way around.

              Will you go join the military then since you think overseas bases and power projection are such great ideas? When will you sacrifice for your country?

              •  No... I'm too old... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                iRobert

                Last time I checked, North Korea has an out of date military and South Korea, even without U.S. military bases, is perfectly capable of defending itself. Even Japan is capable of defending itself nowadays.

                That's an interesting claim.

                Mind explaining it?

                For example, China has nukes.  North Korea has nukes.  Japan and South Korea don't.  How, exactly, do they defend themselves?

                China is at peace with its neighbors and there's no reason to provoke it. Unless that's what you want.

                China is a fascist expansionist dictatorship with historical claims to Tibet, parts of the former Soviet Union, Mongolia, parts of India, Taiwan, much of the Koreas, and the entire South China Sea.  (As a matter of interest, compare a Chinese map of South East Asia to any other map... the Chinese map, unlike all others, shows Chinese territorial waters going all the way down to Malaysia and Indonesia.)

                As China continues to develop and to have the resources to build a first world military it is likely to assert all of those claims (including the ones it has renounced) more vigorously.  This is especially true because the government has almost given up on Communism as a justification for its control and is now relying more and more on nationalism.

                Lastly, there's no good reason to have bases in Europe. Serbia is contained and certainly not a threat to anyone.

                Not to Bosnia, Croatia, or Kosovo?  Or is genocide in Europe none of our business?

                Russia has issues with Georgia, but it's not a threat to national security and none of our business. From the looks of it, our country is threatening Russia, not the other way around.

                Let me get this straight... Russia is keeping troops on Georgian soil against Georgia's wishes.  We are pressuring them to leave.  So that means we are threatening Russia?   Get real.

                It is definitely in America's interest to push Russia back into its old borders.  In fact, I think we made a bad mistake by not pushing forward to totally dismember Russia itself by promoting independence for Chechnya and Dagestan.

                •  Exactly, chike (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  chike

                  To people like the Movac Dafur is not our business, neither was Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, or even the Holocaust.  Our allies can rot because their status is not our business.

                  •  Darfur isn't our problem. (0+ / 0-)

                    We should provide humanitarian aid and accept refugees, but not send in our military. Do you even understand how complicated it the situation is in Sudan? We would be stuck in another Iraq! That and its neighbors Chad and the Central African Republic are involved. We don't need to get involved in a regional clusterfuck that poses no threat to our country.

                    The same goes for Kosovo and Rwanda. Those were regional problems that were the responsibilities of their neighbors.

                    Nice job conflating the Holocaust. Unless you didn't know, WWII wasn't fought to stop the Holocaust. Not to mention how the U.S. and U.K. turned away Jewish refugees.

                    Gee, it must be nice to spread "freedom and democracy" at the barrel of gun. Especially when you don't have to do any of the fighting yourself.

                    •  Notice the evasion... (0+ / 0-)

                      Do you support military action to prevent genocide?

                      Or do we just sit back, look smug, and say "We're too moral to fight"?

                    •  It is easy to say it is too complicated (0+ / 0-)

                      We should provide humanitarian aid and accept refugees, but not send in our military. Do you even understand how complicated it the situation is in Sudan? We would be stuck in another Iraq!

                       The Sudan is not Iraq.  Above all else, if we were to enter as the legitimate representative of the world, or even NATO, we'd have a much better chance.  And it is a burden we could all bear together.  The Balkans is no less complicated than Iraq.  And yet have we not had great success there in ending the genocide!  Iraq was a disaster, and I opposed it from the beginning.  But every conflict isn't Iraq and when we said "never again" after the Holocaust we meant never again, not never so long as it isn't complicated.

                      The same goes for Kosovo and Rwanda. Those were regional problems that were the responsibilities of their neighbors.
                      Nice job conflating the Holocaust. Unless you didn't know, WWII wasn't fought to stop the Holocaust. Not to mention how the U.S. and U.K. turned away Jewish refugees.

                       But it could have been and should have been, Movac.  If Nazi Germany decided to butcher 6 million jews and had not decided to invaded Poland your ideology would prevent the world from doing anything beside standing and watching.  You are the one dodging here, not me.

                      Gee, it must be nice to spread "freedom and democracy" at the barrel of gun. Especially when you don't have to do any of the fighting yourself.

                       I don't want to spread freedom and democracy at gun point, I simply want to defend our allies, ourselves, and our vital interests and prevent the worst excesses of man's inhumanity against man.  That is what the military does, that is its job.  Every citizen does not have an obligation to volunteer to serve in that way.  If national service was instituted, I'd go.  Same if I was drafted.  And I would not change my views.  But to throw that in my face is a cheap, undemocratic trick Movac.

                •  How old are you? (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Meteor Blades, MmeVoltaire

                  China has nukes.  North Korea has nukes.

                  China has nukes, no arguments there. They sure as hell have reasons to use them. China seems more prone to establish trade blocs than go around blowing up other countries. They believe in "soft power", unlike our country.

                  As much as I hate to admit, Bush has successfully gotten North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. South Korea's military is obviously more developed than North Korea's military. South Korea prefers diplomacy over war anyway.

                  Yes, China has a fucked up government. It's done terrible things to the Tibetans, Uigurs and other minorities within its borders. That's not our problem though. Obviously those groups are willing to fight back against their oppressor.

                  Like I pointed out, China is more willing to use trade and diplomacy to get what it wants rather than resorting to military force like our country does.

                  Not to Bosnia, Croatia, or Kosovo?  Or is genocide in Europe none of our business?

                  Nope, that's the European Union's responsibility.

                  Let me get this straight... Russia is keeping troops on Georgian soil against Georgia's wishes.  We are pressuring them to leave.  So that means we are threatening Russia?   Get real.

                  It is definitely in America's interest to push Russia back into its old borders.  In fact, I think we made a bad mistake by not pushing forward to totally dismember Russia itself by promoting independence for Chechnya and Dagestan.

                  Yeah, because Georgia is so pure right?

                  I forgot about South Ossetia and Abkhazia having trouble with the nationalist Georgian government.

                  Chechnya and Dagestan concern us... how?

                  Russia isn't expanding its borders and much like China its using diplomacy (except with Georgia) and trade to get its way. Unless that missle shield goes up in Eastern Europe.

                  •  I don't follow your China position (0+ / 0-)

                    China has nukes, no arguments there. They sure as hell have reasons to use them.

                    I don't follow... right now I don't see how nukes are useful in China's current conflicts.

                    China seems more prone to establish trade blocs than go around blowing up other countries. They believe in "soft power", unlike our country.

                    You might want to ask the Vietnamese and Filipinos about that.  Spratleys again.

                    They are also supplying weapons and military training to Sudan's government - violating the UN military embargo.

                    China still does not have a deep water navy or the capability to project significant force more than a few hundred miles from its own borders.  This makes "soft power" their only option.  However, China is working on rectifying this lack.  They are building aircraft carriers, support vessels, and nuclear submarines.

                  •  Buchananite to the core... (0+ / 0-)

                    Yeah, because Georgia is so pure right?

                    Well, based on your link it seems about as good as former Soviet Republics get (and far better than Russia!).  They're still cleaning up the mess the Soviet Union left them (ie. the police) but yes, they are pretty pure.

                    I forgot about South Ossetia and Abkhazia having trouble with the nationalist Georgian government.

                    Interesting way to describe it... How exactly do you define a "nationalist government"?  Given that the Georgian government has offered both South Ossetia and Abkhazia significant autonomy does it qualify?  Or is trying to shut down alternative governments on your own national territory that tolerate and/or encourage smuggling, kidnapping, and ethnic cleansing evidence of nationalism?

                    Chechnya and Dagestan concern us... how?

                    Oh... I forgot... as far as you are concerned genocide is none of our business.

                    Russia isn't expanding its borders

                    Really?  Is that why they are giving South Ossetians and Abkhazians Russian passports?

                    and much like China its using diplomacy (except with Georgia) and trade to get its way.

                    Is that what you call cutting off gas every time a former Soviet Republic does anything they don't like?

                    Unless that missle shield goes up in Eastern Europe.

                    Why should they object to that?  Unless, of course, they are still using the threat of nuclear attack as leverage...

            •  If we got to war with China, how long ... (0+ / 0-)

              ...do you think it will be before that war turns nuclear and we and t hey are blown to smithereens?

              I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

              by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um... probably not at all (0+ / 0-)

                Neither we nor China are likely to be fighting a war for national existence.  Any near future war will be on the periphery - South Korea or Taiwan, most likely.

                So why would either side go to nuclear Armageddon?

      •  800 military bases (0+ / 0-)

        help us defend our interests and allies in the world.

  •  We need to leave Okinawa. (3+ / 0-)

    This is personal for me. I lived there for 7 years of my life. The Okinawans want the bases off of their land.

    Did you know that the Japanese government can take land from Okinawan citizens and give it to the American military without their consent? I wouldn't expect them to tolerate that shit.

    Okinawa is a beautiful country with lots of potential. We need to give them a chance to fulfill their national destiny without American military bases ruining it for them. In fact, those bases and the Japanese government help perpetuate Okinawa's sad economic situation.

    Let's respect the Okinawans and the Chammoros by leaving their lands.

Permalink | 60 comments