Also, like Churba said, many of the military bases we have in other countries are actually shared with those of the local military. The best example I can personally think of is Lajes Field on Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal. Sure, it's a US Air Force Base, but the runways and other general facilities are shared with the Portuguese Air Force as well as a civilian airport on the island. The extent that the US has a base there is basically, much like the Australian examples, they let us have a few buildings for our gear and staff as well as use of the runways. This particular base doesn't even have any US airplanes permanently stationed there (though the Portuguese air force does have a couple of squadrons based there). It's just a supply depot/emergency runway that can be used by the US and any other NATO member countries (and presumably non-NATO countries with a legitimate emergency or who have made separate arrangements for resupplying). Of course, it's a pretty important base from a strategic standpoint given how it's about 2/3 of the way between the US and Europe, making it an ideal emergency/supply depot location.
We have Army/Navy bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Bulgaria, Australia, Kosovo, Greenland, Afghanistan and a few more Latin American countries I can't remember. Neither geographically nor popularly is that "most of the world." If we were really a world police, there are significantly more crises we would be trying to solve.
Before I have to get out my beating stick on you again, that requires clarification - There's one. And it's not really your base, it's ours - You get what is essentially a single, very small building where secure comms equipment is stored and set up, and shared facilities for staff and troops - which you provide the minority of - so it's "joint" base. Why is it there? Because after the Apollo missions, it became clear that the US needed a comms relay station on the other side of the Globe. So, they asked real nice. We own the land, we provide the majority of the staff, we own all the equipment that isn't the US's extremely classified stuff.
There is also Robertson barracks, which will be the site of a future joint base, but A) it's not a US base yet, and B)Once again, the US is benefiting from it more than we will, considering it's a training and deployment base for US forces that we're aiding them with. Again, the US wanted it, and asked very nicely.
Which really raises the question, considering - Where's our Cheque, then?
I know. I kept it in there because otherwise it would create a double standard. The Bulgarian base is also a joint venture, but it has a Carrier so I figure it's worth mentioning. To then not mention the Australian one would be unfair. Also, we use that base. We sent 2500 marines over last year.
Also, we use that base. We sent 2500 marines over last year.
Err, no you didn't, and don't. You sent about 250 over a period of six months, and they're all back home. There's currently only a tiny amount of US troops there, overseeing building projects, if I recall, if any at all - my info is about four months out of date. The US plans to have 2500 stationed here in the next six years, with the six year timeframe starting last year, and they'll be here mostly for training and out on exercise with Australian assistance. They certainly don't have a base, since Roberson barracks is almost exclusively filled with Australian troops. If you had 2500 men stationed here, there wouldn't be anywhere to put the bastards.
We saved your asses in World War II. YOU'RE WELCOME. /greentext wink wink
You actually did, you know. Well, maybe not saved, but certainly helped out a lot - England didn't have the capability to project force in a reasonable time-frame in south-east Asia - a problem the US didn't share. We may fight hard, but there is only so much we could do against such a numerically superior force as the Japanese army, especially with our forces split between three theaters.
Hold the fuck on here you lot. All this talk of money and owing people! Why with out the staunch Red Coat you lot would still be groveling in the dirt under Liz's baleful glare, bereft to tea, and Monty Python so remember that before you all start to waggle your talk of money around.
Where's our Cheque, then?
We saved your asses in World War II. YOU'RE WELCOME. /greentext wink wink
You actually did, you know. Well, maybe not saved, but certainly helped out a lot - England didn't have the capability to project force in a reasonable time-frame in south-east Asia - a problem the US didn't share. We may fight hard, but there is only so much we could do against such a numerically superior force as the Japanese army, especially with our forces split between three theaters.
It was the problem of the war, that we didn't have enough troops to fight the world. The US on the other hand did. Now if we have been smarter and fully mobilized India and the Nepalese and let them loose on the Japanese whilst concentrating on holding Europe things could have been different.
Also who said we needed saving in the first place! We had Jerry right were we anted him.
Also, the American Navy is pretty much the only thing with the presence and reach to effectively guarantee the safety of shipping lanes. If not for that, large-scale shipping would seem a lot riskier.
I think that's an accurate assessment of what we do, also having a ship do a cruz around Asia or Europe stopping at all the major ports is good PR. While they're there they could have the Captain pick up the check for our services.
Best quote, from our buddy Newt - “It’s not about ideology…The people on the left are the people on the left, and they ask us to come to them – which is absurd…Obama’s a hard core left-winger. I want him to compromise with us on our terms.”
Basically they want less crazytalk about rape and putting down women's rights, but FUCK YOU if you want to compromise with the left!
Adapt or die. If the GOP doesn't keep up with modern society, the party will dwindle into insignificance and be replaced by a more relevant group.
I would rather they be up front about their bigotry than insidiously whitewashing it. A party of "HEY, we are bigoted assholes who don't understand science!" is a lot less threatening than a party of "Hey girl, I will totally fight for your rights EXCEPT OH WAIT I don't think you actually have any!"
Newt knows what compromise means. He means it in the "We want X, we'll accept half of X as a compromise" sort of way. He does not mean it in the traditional "I want X you want Y, why don't we try half X and half Y?"
Course when X is "I want you to starve to death" and Y is "I want to eat enough so I can live" It can be kind of hard to reach a compromise point.
It is even more ridiculous when one side is saying, "You must eat this huge stack of hamburgers" AND "If you eat another hamburger I will kill you!!!" More so when the person doing the eating is essentially paralyzed and has zero control over the actual feeding process. Which is what the debt ceiling fight is kind of like.
It is kind of a crap shoot that most politicians are narcissists, but I think that's a reason to be more involved in the process writing letters, making calls, and if you're invested enough showing up at demonstrations.
No doubt US Navy is very useful. What about the other branches?
The marines and army are good for initial invasions but like any force of that nature the occupying, policing, and fighting guerilla forces is where the problems arise. The air force is moving more and more toward cyber defense in addition to there more traditional roles.
Don't forget, the Army is far more than just a pack of dudes with guns. There's also the Army Air wing, Army Corp of engineers, Medical corps, Army Materiel Command, etc, etc - and they make up the majority of people employed by te millitary, for every frontline combat trooper, there's another 15 dudes behind him, getting him and the things he needs to where he needs to go, and making sure he's healthy and everything is in good repair when he gets there. The army can build a bridge just as effectively as they can blow one up.
Good point, I should have remembered that. The navy has the SEABEES and core men who can serve similar purposes, not only that but volunteer work is encouraged whenever possible at foreign ports and here. I heard some cool stories about building schools in Africa from some of my leadership.
Yep. One example from where I grew up is the New Bedford Hurricane Barrier. It's basically a giant dam that can open or close as necessary to protect New Bedford harbor, a major commercial fishing port, from hurricane and other storm surges. 100% designed and built by the Army Corps of Engineers.
He's back again, with an argument that hinges on a single point, which he's either incorrect or lying about, depending on his motives.
Basically, the entire thing hinges on the idea that "Enemy Combatant" is an incredibly vague term - Except, it's not. It's explicitly defined in the laws of war - A combatant is someone who has taken direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. An "Enemy combatant" is simply a combatant under the employ or marching under the banner of the entity which you are in conflict with. From there, it breaks down further - Privileged, unprivileged, non-combatants, unlawful combatants, etc.
But since that's not a vague term, his entire fear-mongering argument falls apart - Yeah, they can detain enemy combatants without trial. Really, they kinda always have been able to - What do you think prisoners of war are, if not enemy combatants detained indefinitely(which, I remind you, means "For an unlimited or unspecified period of time", which makes sense, considering that you can't really predict the future, or how long a war will actually take) without trial?
Edit - P.s Choo Choo, motherfuckin' fact check train has no brakes.
Comments
Also who said we needed saving in the first place! We had Jerry right were we anted him.
Best quote, from our buddy Newt - “It’s not about ideology…The people on the left are the people on the left, and they ask us to come to them – which is absurd…Obama’s a hard core left-winger. I want him to compromise with us on our terms.”
Basically they want less crazytalk about rape and putting down women's rights, but FUCK YOU if you want to compromise with the left!
I would rather they be up front about their bigotry than insidiously whitewashing it. A party of "HEY, we are bigoted assholes who don't understand science!" is a lot less threatening than a party of "Hey girl, I will totally fight for your rights EXCEPT OH WAIT I don't think you actually have any!"
Course when X is "I want you to starve to death" and Y is "I want to eat enough so I can live" It can be kind of hard to reach a compromise point.
It is even more ridiculous when one side is saying, "You must eat this huge stack of hamburgers" AND "If you eat another hamburger I will kill you!!!" More so when the person doing the eating is essentially paralyzed and has zero control over the actual feeding process. Which is what the debt ceiling fight is kind of like.
The air force is moving more and more toward cyber defense in addition to there more traditional roles.
EMPEROR PROTECT THEM.
He's back again, with an argument that hinges on a single point, which he's either incorrect or lying about, depending on his motives.
Basically, the entire thing hinges on the idea that "Enemy Combatant" is an incredibly vague term - Except, it's not. It's explicitly defined in the laws of war - A combatant is someone who has taken direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. An "Enemy combatant" is simply a combatant under the employ or marching under the banner of the entity which you are in conflict with. From there, it breaks down further - Privileged, unprivileged, non-combatants, unlawful combatants, etc.
But since that's not a vague term, his entire fear-mongering argument falls apart - Yeah, they can detain enemy combatants without trial. Really, they kinda always have been able to - What do you think prisoners of war are, if not enemy combatants detained indefinitely(which, I remind you, means "For an unlimited or unspecified period of time", which makes sense, considering that you can't really predict the future, or how long a war will actually take) without trial?
Edit - P.s Choo Choo, motherfuckin' fact check train has no brakes.