It's time for BIG cuts in our military

exactly. you hit the nail right on the head. im sick and tired of us helping countries out then not even a thank you. screw em. they either stand up and fight or go down in flames. let them spill their blood. when they call the US all they get is a busy signal

 

Don't be selfish. Educate us.

 

namvet, macljack, et al,

Ah yes. The big Picture concept behind the hegemony.

(COMMENT)

There are two competing ideas and concepts in play:

There was a time, after WWII, that the forward deployment of military power was deemed appropriate in order for the US to back-up its diplomatic efforts with the force necessary. This was the idea, that the US would suggest to other nations a policy through diplomatic means; but, in the background demonstrate the ability to enforce it through strength of arms.

Since that time, the US has demonstrated its reach and power around the globe. Other nations see this as a form of international intimidation and are resistant to US efforts to make further demands. Such diplomacy has now become counterproductive. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are the latest examples of strategies that will not yield and return on the investments made.

At the same time, many Americans are very conscience of the fact that the USG is spending many times more money to reconstruct and build-up the infrastructures of ungrateful people, at the expense of the reinvestment in the American CONUS industrialization, infrastructure, commercial and scientific research that has (in the past) given America a competative advantage in the world economy.

It is becoming a very growing concern, in the American Middle Class, that Washington would rather bankrupt American, in its evangelistic effort to push democracy on foreign powers that don't appreciate the effort, than rebuild CONUS into a 21st Century Economic Power House. Thus, with very little disposable revenue and discretionary spending power, the USG seems to be wasting it on foreign soil.

This is driving an anti-hegemony movement and a new drive to reduce the urge for Washington to engage in foreign military adventures by restricting the deployment capacity and recalling foreign deployed forces. In the process, such revenue saved could be used to strengthen the US economy and infrastructure. Eliminating the need for advanced diplomatic efforts with a heavy reliance on political-military activity.

Many believe that the military hegemony should be replaced by an Industrial and Commercial based hegemony, where America projects a new kind of strength that dominates and influences the world. Some believe that the USG should be reconstructing America instead of Iraq, Afghanistan and other ungrateful third world nations that don't want our presents.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

That is not an option.

 

How about the Mutual Defense Treaty that both the US and UK entered into? And don't forget, the bases in question are not US bases, but actually either NATO bases, or foreign bases where the US has a presence.

For example, there is no such thing as the Mildenhall Air Force Base. It is correctly called RAF Mildenhall. And for those that do not know, RAF stands for Royal Air Force.

Built in 1930, opened in 1935 by King George V. It was home to most of the bombers that bombed Germany during WWII. In 1950 the UK started to allow the USAF to use the base as part of the US-UK Mutual Defense Treaty (which is renewed every 10 years).

If you really do not like this, then you have your chance to stop it. The treaty is up for renewal in 2014. Start talking to your politicians now, and put a stop to the treaty.

 

Why on earth not??

That circular reasoning is hardly real justification.

Excellent research, thanks. I didn't know the treaty was up so soon. Good job!

 

Sure as hell is. With very few exceptions.

 

consider it mine

 

We should maintain bases in the Middle East and Asia. Everywhere can be shut down.

 

And how do we get the needed people and equipment to those bases?

When I flew to and from the Middle East, we stopped over in Canada, Iceland and Germany. When our soldiers are injured in theatre, they are evacuated to Germany once they are stable enough to travel. There they are treated until they are safe enough to finish the travel to the United States.

Our bases in Europe are there to fulfill our commitments to NATO. Do we break that treaty as well, and close all the bases (in addition to breaking the treaty with the UK and pulling out of there also)?

 

That's their choice as a sovereign nation. You do realize they're a sovereign nation, don't you? The rest of your post is nothing more than a display of your impressive imagination.

 

None of which makes your opinion superior to anyone else's, soldier.

 

For that matter, neither does your claim of military service.

And another nations sovereignty can never be allowed to endanger the United States.

 

I'm not the pompous one writing insulting accusations of ignorance.

 

American military presence is the best deterrent to regional conflicts the world over. Sure, we can bomb them from anywhere, but the psychological effect of manpower and physical presence cannot be underestimated.

 

I agree very much that the military needs to be cut, but I don't trust many people to get it right, so I think it's best not to tinker in the middle of an important war.

 

It doesn't matter that they are a sovereign nation, they are too small/weak, etc to defend themselves or to protect the sea lanes for instance.

Who is going to ensure that a Soveriegn nation like China doesn't decide one day that oh.. the South China Sea is all theirs and any other nations ships that they don't approve will be unable to use it. You've heard of the Spratly Islands Conflict right?

That's not "imagination" thats a very real possibility in the future. If the US isn't there to stop that move, who will? the UN??? Please..

You forget that there is simply no other nation on earth with a competent and well funded military capable of protecting their own interests EXCEPT the USA which means when totalitarian governments invade.. we are the first ones to be called.

 

Are you kidding???? That's THE most important thing to consider!

Are you proposing that we should put permanent US military bases in every weak nation to protect it against any potential threat?

You seem to forget that the very principle for the creation of the United States of America is FREEDOM. After nearly 235 years I think it's time we finally start to walk our talk.

You also seem to forget that the reason no other nation can defend themselves is because we've been the world's police since WW2, and that while we were standing on foreign shores protecting foreign interests with American flesh fences, they've been using what would have been funds for defense to build their infrastructure and industry bases. The Cold War is over. It's time we let sovereign nations be sovereign, and let them put their own kids at risk to protect their interests. If they need our help we can be there within hours to provide air support.