• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Altair said:
Troops make a hell of a lot of money being based outside their home country. Also, most bases back the USA can easily absorb the amount of personnel it has based overseas, so with that comes the added savings of not needing to operate these extra bases. Canada saved a lot of money when they closed down CFB Lahr in Germany for example.
Click to expand...

The Troops still need to be paid, the operational capabilities will need to be required, etc. According to the LA Times article, the cost in maintaining the bases is 10 Billion worldwide....not exactly a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of the US military budget.

You're right, those bases did handle a tremendous amount of logistics for the Americans. Won't dispute that. That said, these bases will still be there and after seeing what NATO can build up in Afghanistan from scratch over the course of a year, I'm not worried about unmothballing a base in Germany or elsewhere. These bases are luxuries, not necessities.
Click to expand...

A fair chunk of the US military budget is in political luxuries of far less real use than the international power projection ability these bases provide. The general opinion from the experts on this is that these bases are much closer to necessities that you seem to be suggesting.

China? Please. What country has a base that houses 50 thousand Chinese soldiers? No where, that's who.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you could miss the point more if you were trying to. I'm not comparing the Chinese capability to US capability. That would be silly. I'm simply using the Chinese desire to project military power internationally as further proof in the obvious benefits that "great powers" see in this concept that you continue to ignore the importance of.

The US has floating military bases and the ability to project power all around the globe and they don't need bases in Germany, S. Korea and Japan to do so.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just silly talk. I'm kind of shocked that a soldier is discounting the influence that boots on the ground, available in short order, would have in power projection.

NATO has pushed 4000 soldiers into the Baltics with the capacity for 20 times that number if needed and they don't need a permanent base to do so. Took about a year. Not all that expensive. [/quote]

That's kind of the point of having troops in the region...so that it doesn't take a year. Kind of difficult to manage crisis situations if it takes weeks or months to put strength on the ground.

As for your point that every great power has done it, granted. In fairness to those great powers, they lived in a time where they had direct military rivals who were constantly pushing to take over their spot. The US hasn't been in a war that threatened its hold on it's global power since 1939-1945, yet it maintains these expensive troop deployments and base operations long after that.
Click to expand...

Well, there was the whole soviet thing....and since then, they've had a unipolar world power structure to protect and support. The unipolar structure that they wanted post WW2, that they profitted off of immensely.

Also, if those ancient powers had nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and aircraft that can drop soldiers just about anywhere on the planet within 24 hours they might have revaluated the cost/benefit ration of having all these global bases as well.
Click to expand...

I'm still shocked that you don't see the value in boots on the ground.

The bases are a relic of the cold war and in large part aren't required the same way they were even 10 years ago. Maybe a argument could be made for Korea, but Japan and Germany, no.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe that you quite understand the benefit the US receives in having the ability to change peoples minds around the world

Ah yes, those pesky plebs again. In all seriousness though, if the President works out a better deal with the Germans who are currently paying 1 billion of the 5 billion it costs the US have 50 thousand soldiers in Germany, I don't see the harm. Germany has a budget surplus of 25 billion euros, they can afford it. Yes, and with aircraft carriers and stealth planes and the near limitless potential of the drone program, bases become more and more obsolete.
Click to expand...

Could easily backfire on the US. If Germany determines that they want to have more stability in their ability to promote peace in the region and they ramp up militarily, the US will lose a ton of soft power in the region. The US has it's voice heard everywhere on the planet simply because of their military power projection, and if it becomes less prevalent in various regions, so will the ability of the US to manage geopolitical situations.


So if America (Trump) decides it's cheaper to bring the troops home, don't worry, the American military dominance will continue on unabated. Don't lose any sleep over it.
Click to expand...

If America creates power vacuums (even small, regional ones), they will get filled one way or another. Unipolar power projection exists for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Trump tells it like it is to the press in Germany

SPIEGEL English‏Verified account
@SPIEGEL_English
"The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the U.S. terrible. We will stop this."
 
cant be real

Gov. Mike Huckabee‏Verified account @GovMikeHuckabee · 5h5 hours ago

43 yrs ago today, Janet McCain became my 1st wife. We were only 12 yrs old, making us late bloomers for a southern couple, but we lasted!
 
CH1 said:
Trump tells it like it is to the press in Germany

SPIEGEL English‏Verified account
@SPIEGEL_English
"The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the U.S. terrible. We will stop this."
Click to expand...

Tell Ford, GM, etc to build better cars.
 
oV3MG1T9V8NKPm3Nc_qT1m-1Ffbh_T-WMATaQNTTKO8.png
 
Last edited:
CH1 said:
Trump tells it like it is to the press in Germany

SPIEGEL English‏Verified account
@SPIEGEL_English
"The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the U.S. terrible. We will stop this."
Click to expand...

Looking forward to the response from workers at BMW, Mercedes and Audi plants in SC, TN, and AL.
 
hockeylover said:
Looking forward to the response from workers at BMW, Mercedes and Audi plants in SC, TN, and AL.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think his idiocy is so commonplace that it's increasingly being tuned out by those who know better. A few months ago, that tweet would have pissed many people in Germany but now they realize he doesn't represent the views of most Americans.

Closer to home, people are doubting that he can back up his statements with real legislation.

Just hope he can keep his fingers off the nuclear remote.
 
Just for a little fun, Jeff Ross during the Trump roast a few years back. Lands several quality punches.

[video=youtube;FbxpoFhz6sY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxpoFhz6sY[/video]
 
MindzEye said:
The Troops still need to be paid, the operational capabilities will need to be required, etc. According to the LA Times article, the cost in maintaining the bases is 10 Billion worldwide....not exactly a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of the US military budget.
Click to expand...
I would be paid more for being overseas and paid extra to cover stuff back home while I'm gone. While not terribly expensive, for someone pinching pennies it's a easy target.
A fair chunk of the US military budget is in political luxuries of far less real use than the international power projection ability these bases provide. The general opinion from the experts on this is that these bases are much closer to necessities that you seem to be suggesting.
Click to expand...
I can see many vested interests saying that those bases are Uber important. Bigly. That said, I've seen those same people on canada who will fight tooth an nail to keep places like shilo open, goose Bay, aldershot, saying they are of great strategic importance to Canada. Goose Bay hasn't really been used in years and shilo is redundant with CFB wainwright in the west able to do everything shilo does but better. Costs the CAF a pretty penny to keep these bases open. So colour me sceptical.
I'm not sure if you could miss the point more if you were trying to. I'm not comparing the Chinese capability to US capability. That would be silly. I'm simply using the Chinese desire to project military power internationally as further proof in the obvious benefits that "great powers" see in this concept that you continue to ignore the importance of.
Click to expand...
The Chinese seen to be putting more time effort and money into aircraft carriers and stealth fighters than a global system of foreign bases. Just saying.
Well, that's just silly talk. I'm kind of shocked that a soldier is discounting the influence that boots on the ground, available in short order, would have in power projection.

NATO has pushed 4000 soldiers into the Baltics with the capacity for 20 times that number if needed and they don't need a permanent base to do so. Took about a year. Not all that expensive.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point of having troops in the region...so that it doesn't take a year. Kind of difficult to manage crisis situations if it takes weeks or months to put strength on the ground.
Click to expand...
location location location.

4000 NATO soldiers actually armed to to the teeth in the baltics>50000 soldiers in Germany. If you had to pick one to dissuade Russian from starting shit in eastern Europe, which would you rather?
Well, there was the whole soviet thing....and since then, they've had a unipolar world power structure to protect and support. The unipolar structure that they wanted post WW2, that they profitted off of immensely.
Click to expand...
I guess, but if they don't want to pay for it anymore, whatever, their choice.
I'm still shocked that you don't see the value in boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
Location.
Again, I don't believe that you quite understand the benefit the US receives in having the ability to change peoples minds around the world



Could easily backfire on the US. If Germany determines that they want to have more stability in their ability to promote peace in the region and they ramp up militarily, the US will lose a ton of soft power in the region. The US has it's voice heard everywhere on the planet simply because of their military power projection, and if it becomes less prevalent in various regions, so will the ability of the US to manage geopolitical situations.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. The UK actually spends 2 percent of GDP in defense spending, and they joined the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany, with their 50k American troops on their soil did Jack all. France, who spends close to 2 percent of GDP on defense did a little bit in Afghanistan. Germany, again, did even less. Soft power? Means sweet **** all. I hope you actually aren't that naive.

If America creates power vacuums (even small, regional ones), they will get filled one way or another. Unipolar power projection exists for a reason.
Click to expand...

Ya, sure. Let's pull the Americans soldiers out of Germany S Korea and Japan and see who fills the vacuum.

I bet on...Japan...S Korean and ....Germany.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top