U.S. Special Forces Operate in more than 80 Countries

This is bloody ridiculous. And some silly people here keep accusing other nations of aggression. 80 countries for heaven's sake. What are you trying to do? Occupy the whole world?


U.S. Special Forces Operate in more than 80 Countries

http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-t...-in-more-than-80-countries-150426?news=856334

To Learn More:

Gen. Joseph Votel Statement (House Armed Services Committee) (pdf)

Special Forces: What U.S. Gets Wrong (by Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew and Stuart Bradin, Global Special Operations Forces Foundation)

U.S. has Military Bases in at least 38 Countries and Sent Weapons to 94 Countries in Last 5 Years (by Steve Straehley, AllGov)

 

I see a British flag there ... US have never occupied foreign lands to take them ... while there was a time when the British Empire dominated on many far lands around the world. So ...

 

What is humorous about this, is that Washington keeps accusing Russia of being in Ukraine, when one third of the people there are Russians, while at the same time there are hundreds of American secret service agents in Eastern Ukraine. Hmmm! I guess the millions of Americans living there need some sort of protection?

 

We're more subtle about taking foreign lands. We're a true 21st century empire.

 

I'm not sure that it's so ridiculous. These aren't occupation troops. I suspect most of these countries have Special Forces there for training purposes, rather than operations.

 

If the nations the US freed in WWII were to become a part of it, they would be under US jurisdiction and laws. They might even want to achieve statehood, and that would lessen the power of the existing states.

As an example of the problems, there was a time when Puerto Rican men were coming into NYC en masse and collecting their welfare checks, which at that time was greater than in any other state. On Fridays the planes to Puerto Rico were packed as they flew home for the weekend. Now just imagine if the US had other territories?

Anyway the problem was solved by moving industries to Puerto Rico and developing it...which makes me wonder, maybe if we did take over Mexico and did the same thing, the problems with immigration would have solved itself.

 

you cannot invade a whole country with only special forces on it, and if they are allowed by the countries which have troops on it, what is the problem? more of them are ally countries, and sure there are many countries who would kill for having US troops in their soils.

 

Don't be naïve, the men are there to make sure those countries comply with Washington's interests. If it wasn't so they wouldn't have been arming and training the foreign jihadists in Syria who were killing Christians, Alawites and Shias, and referring to them as 'moderates'? In Yemen they ran out with the diplomats when Saudi Arabia began bombing, and left even the American citizens of Yemen extraction to fend for themselves. They said they didn't want to take the risks, yet Russia, China, and India did.

I can't understand why don't we just butt out of world affairs, and start become a force for peace and stability in the world, instead of just causing chaos so we could retain our hegemony? We could even learn to live with other nations such as Russia, and work with them instead of against them? I guess I'm expecting too much.

 

Mah, the geopolitical control of the sphere of influence is not given by the Special Forces, but by alliances [in Italy we've got a lot of US ordinary forces, with USAF and USN, but they are here because we are allies, not because Americans are occupying our country].

 

Not exactly, US are not an empire, they are more similar to the ancient Athens with its network of interests. And this comment won't make American politicians happy [they dream to be similar to the Roman Republic ... actually they are far from that].

 

I sort of like the US being compared to Athens.

 

One of the things I've noticed about your posts is that they are by and large ridiculous. It's like you live in some sort of alternate world. I think you should confine your posting to Earth 2.

 

I do not think politicians dream with the fact to be the román empire, the romans need to maintain their empire with a lot of troops in enemy ground with it is so expensive, and actually there is no need of that, only with casuals demostrations of force and with the money and a little of good policies are just what are needed to be the predominance country, easier that what the roman empire had to make

 

Did Athens bankrupt itself deploying a professional military throughout its network of interests? I think classic imperialism is still a better comparison, although I also recognise that there are differences, which is why I wanted to stress that we're a 21st century empire. We're doing things in some newer, more evolved (ie more effective) ways.

 

And Americans wonder why the national debt is so high. 18.6 Trillion. Can the U.S. continue to afford a world-wide military presence?

 

Actually a huge part of the problem is that in times of both Republican and Democratic Party control of the Executive Branch from 2000 to today almost no citizens (aside from Tea Party Movement members) worry about the obscenely bloated national debt because the nation's Mainstream Media point blank refuse to talk about it or allow it to come up for discussion. Essentially the MSM said to the citizens of the United States of America in regards to the status of the National Debt, "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Just concentrate on continuing to put food on your table and leave the important things to the federal government, the bankers, and the nation's tons of insanely stupid or corrupt economists."

 

Military spending is less than 5% of that 18.6. So, pulling a few special forces troops in foreign countries is not going to have much of an effect on it.

Besides which, the debt is not what you should be so concerned about, in your haze of ignorant opinion.

 

Yes, and the annual budget deficit is only 2.6% of the total accumulated debt. That debt didn't just buildup in one year. Compounding interest rates are part of the reason.

That's not really a logical conclusion, for the reason stated above.

The debt itself poses more long-term danger than any foreign military threat.

 

Maybe we should fix that train wreck we call welfare eh?

 

Hundreds of secret service in eastern Ukraine eh? Lmfao. You just can't help yourself can you. But it's not like it's hard for you. I mean, I can recall many a month ago after the conflict had only just started. And you were on this forum going on and on about how the death toll was already over 100,000 Ukrainian civilans, 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers. 10,000 blackwater mercenaries and 1000 USA CIA and special forces. Oh, but only 100 Russian terrorists, I mean, freedom fighters, had died. Do you remember that thread you made? Lol. I laughed myself to sleep reading that one.

 

It's obvious that similar comparisons have to keep in the right consideration the difference of historical contexts [in a historical analysis it's always a duty to contextualize].

Also Greece knew a colonial period [in Italy we can visit the archaeological sites of the "Magna Grecia", just to say], but the core of that civilization wasn't the construction of an over sea domain, but a wide commercial system with a considerable military capability to defend it [they were able to face Persia].

This is why the US are more similar the Athens than to Rome [Rome enlarged its territory with its commercial network, Athens enriched its economy, not necessarily its territorial domains].

 

I've got to chuckle a bit. Comparing Americans with the Greeks or the Romans is hilarious. Americans are more like barbarians without any culture who roam around the globe causing chaos, death and destruction. The U.S empire will be remembered as the empire of barbarians and savages who didn't leave anything valuable behind. Of course, on condition the barbarians don't destroy planet before their inevitable fall.

Meanwhile...


The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

Or none, depending on your definition of 'war'.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-now-involved-134-wars/196846/

 

how did our entire country's borders form? what about the phillipines or puerto rico?

The USA has invaded and changed the governments of more than 40 countries like South Korea, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Iran, Chile etc etc. In fact invading other countries or "territories" if your native american, is all we seem to do

.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

 

? How did Muhammad and his successors create Islam? [in 8th century CE Muslim armies were trying and erasing Christianity from the surface of this planet, just to remind history ...].

Unfortunately for modern pacifists, in history military conflicts have been an ordinary part of the process of formation of empires and later of national countries [Germans have built Germany fighting, Italians have built Italy fighting ... and so on ...].

The matter is significant only after the general agreement on inviolability of sovereignty referred to countries recognized by the international community represented by UN. So, "not licit invasions" [like licit invasions could exist!] can be detected only in our present geopolitical context of accepted international agreements regarding sovereignty.

 

okay so basically were in agreement? the USA behaves like an 8th century muslim empire