Quote:

---

The real purpose of finding the report (Which you ignored in your response but quoted in it. (Hmm. Could that be considered "cherry-picking?)) was to identify where our "installations" are located. As I noted (and you quoted) "As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea."

Now, since we do agree that military installations are placed to project power, who do you think that these installations, most of which have been there for 30 years or more, were trying to project power against? Who's been the West's major boogieman from the '50s to the 90's? The Commies! Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked, or in the best places to launch retaliatory strikes. The US was the only other "super-power" besides the Soviet Union, and we naturally took on a major part of the defensive role.
Even though the cold war is over, simple inertia and the fact that there are still threats in the world keep us from completely pulling back to our shores and pre-WWI and WWII isolationism.

---

Quote:

---

The point of having installations (I DID say installations, not bases) all over the world is not to place them in hostile areas but to be able to project military power anywhere we want. If any other nation were to have HALF the installations that we do, we would be rightly and deeply concerned about their military ambitions!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Just thought I'd quickly point out two items:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa.htm

Quote:

---

The US military presence in Japan and on Okinawa began at the end of World War II. Although the US occupation in Japan ended in 1952, US administration continued on Okinawa until 1972. In 1951, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was officially recognized, Okinawa legally became a possession of the United States. In 1972, control of Okinawa was reverted to Japan.

---

http://www.carnelian-international.com/Philippines/Post_Independence.h
tm

Quote:

---

The Philippines became an integral part of emerging United States security arrangements in the western Pacific upon approval of the Military Bases Agreement in March 1947. The United States retained control of twenty-three military installations, including Clark Air Base and the extensive naval facilities at Subic Bay, for a lease period of ninety-nine years. United States rather than Philippine authorities retained full jurisdiction over the territories covered by the military installations, including over collecting taxes and trying offenders, including Filipinos, in cases involving United States service personnel.

---

Neither country had military bases ESTABLISHED due to the Cold War.

---

Quote:

---

Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

The real purpose of finding the report (Which you ignored in your response but quoted in it. (Hmm. Could that be considered "cherry-picking?)) was to identify where our "installations" are located. As I noted (and you quoted) "As expected, most are in the countries of NATO allies, along with Japan and South Korea."

Now, since we do agree that military installations are placed to project power, who do you think that these installations, most of which have been there for 30 years or more, were trying to project power against? Who's been the West's major boogieman from the '50s to the 90's? The Commies! Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked, or in the best places to launch retaliatory strikes. The US was the only other "super-power" besides the Soviet Union, and we naturally took on a major part of the defensive role.
Even though the cold war is over, simple inertia and the fact that there are still threats in the world keep us from completely pulling back to our shores and pre-WWI and WWII isolationism.

---

I did not ignore that point, I addressed it as follows:

Quote:

---

The point of having installations (I DID say installations, not bases) all over the world is not to place them in hostile areas but to be able to project military power anywhere we want. If any other nation were to have HALF the installations that we do, we would be rightly and deeply concerned about their military ambitions!

---

It is irrelevant to the rest of the world whether we call these bases "defensive" or not, since they are rightly seen as forward projections of power. Any President could use these bases for offensive as well as defensive purposes. The point is that we have them, and we are the ONLY nation to have such worldwide military presence.

A funny thing about this list- it does not list our bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Uzbekistan which I KNOW existed in 2003. I do wonder what rationale they list-makers used to ignore them.

I don't know whether our "troop strength abroad" was declining pre 9-11. I'm not sure that's a relevant factor because we are using bombs, shells, and rockets rather than sheer troop strength, and counting on faster deployment. If you look at our military spending by per capita, percent GNP, and percent of world total our military far outstrips the rest of the world and has never gone down to post WWII levels.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Most installations were built when communist aggression was considered a real threat, in the places most likely to be attacked

---

Just addressing a mis-statement on your part.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Reading the facts all you folks cite, and all the different points of view, and, come to that, methods of argument, I wonder

1. What goals do you think are most important for our society to persue?
2. What do you envision as the best (not fastest, or cheapest, or nicest, but best) methods to achieve those goals?

Maybe a list of 3 top goals for our society and 3 methods to undertake for each.
Even we don't get lively enough a discussion, maybe extend it to top 7?

Maybe this is another thread *cringe* ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- It's back to work for me so I'll get back with you later.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Here is some locals and troops numbers you may find of interest.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1004-05.htm

Have you considered why the US had so many troops in Saudi Arabia post Desert Storms ?

Up front it was to protect the Kingdom from Iraq... but not only was Iraq beat to crap, but a huge majority of those troops were not based on the border in a defensive posture...

They were based in and near all of Saudi Arabias main cities...

Now this does not make sense to me as not only does that inflame much of the public there ( as foreign worker usually had their own compounds well out of town ) but also provided serious security issues as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/29/saudi.wrap/

Now I wonder, were they there to keep the Saudi government in line... or even more likely to provide support in the event of a coup attempt or a popular uprising against the house of Saud.


And this sort of interference has made the US loved around the world.....


" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, are you trying to say that Prince Sultan AFB was a small-time operation and was/ is irrelevant to the Saudi government and the region? According to the team that dismantled PSAFB they removed:

- the largest contingency power plants in AF hx
- a major water distribution systems.
- three major fuel storage and distribution areas
- the largest contingency fuels farms in the AF
- 1,000 drums of hazardous waste
— 180 tents and 12 general purpose shelters

They also cleaned and inspected more than 1,200 base facilities.
http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/PA/news/archive/2003/Dec/1223-03.
htm

PSAFB housed about 4,500 troops and had:

4,257-bed facility
three community dining halls
a gymnasium
recreation center
library
pool

The 4,000-5,000 troops were redeployed to neighboring Qatar.

In addition, about 17 bases are being built in Iraq, at least one is being built in Uzbekistan (very quietly) and one is Kyrzygstan (also quietly).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

This might be interesting if your info about US strength in Saudi Arabia was up to date. According to Globalsecurity.org, the US moved all but about 500 troops out of Saudi Arabia in mid-2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

Those must be 500 supertroopers if they expect to take over the country. I'd guess that they're there more as liaison with the Saudi military.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

This might be interesting if your info about US strength in Saudi Arabia was up to date. According to Globalsecurity.org, the US moved all but about 500 troops out of Saudi Arabia in mid-2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/saudi-arabia.htm

Those must be 500 supertroopers if they expect to take over the country. I'd guess that they're there more as liaison with the Saudi military.

---

Yes, the information was dated. That kinda was the point. I'll try to be more clear:

One of the reasons al-Qaeda declared its jihad against the US was the fact that US troops were based in Arabia.

Exiled Pro-Democracy dissidents voice their objections - Dr Saad al Fagih " I don't think there is a sensible person who belives that the Americans should stay in Saudi Arabia "

the deputy PM of Yemen " The US military forces are neither liked or appreciated "

The British Ambassador " the American presence in Saudia is clumsy, provocative, and counter productive "

Now as I said before, the deployments of personnel were

A) Not in Defensive positions on the border.

B) Not deployed to train Saudi Forces

C) Deployed in or just outside every major city

Now what was the utility of this, the troops involved were exposed to a hostile local population, for what reason ?

Deploying away from the citys, perhaps on the coastal roads away from built up area would have prevented the khobar towers bombing etc, as well as possibly being less provocative to the locals... but no, so I submise there was a reason. Perhaps to block a change in government, that while even if having popular support the US would try to knock down in order to protect its own interests.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Intere
st_2004_01_16.htm

Now as this was one of three reasons for this Jihad in the first place, the reasons behind the actions leading in are definately relevant.

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing how a supporter of American foreign policy answered up to the accusations that al-Qaeda made before this war started, and to see how you felt about incidents where the United States promoted Terrorism

---