US warns Ottawa of pending WikiLeaks release

[5-0 Kenpo]

No offense Bob, you know I am not a US hater, but politically speaking, the US does those things because it gains from them one way or another. Not out of philantropical reasons.

The same as every other country in the world. Though I would actually argue that there are things that the U.S. government actually does for altruistic reasons.

Do you think that Europe wants the US bases? The US has those bases for operational and strategic reasons. Not because we are asking for it.

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that those countries which sponsor bases in Europe do so un-willingly. Especially since most of these bases were started after WWII and during the Cold War with Russia threatening to the east.

Maybe Europe no longer wants U.S. bases on their soil. But how about you ask the South Koreans how they feel about soldiers on their land.

Those nukes are here not for our benefit, but to give the US the opportunity to take off with fighter jet deployed drop nukes at a moments notice.

At one time I'm sure these nukes were also for Belgium's benefit, like during the Cold War. They may have prevented masses of T-72s from being at your front doorstep.

If the US were to do what you suggest, they lose all strategical advantage they have,

Not at all. We still have the world largest and most effective navy which can make it's presence felt damn near anywhere.

as well as cause a mass unemployment because all those soldiers can't be stationed in the US. You'd kill the US economy. And to make matters worse, you'd kill nearly the entire military industry and their enablers. If you thought the current recession was bad, then that would cause a national depression.

Why not? In fact, bringing all of those troops home would decrease the U.S. unemployment due to the fact that there would need to be an expansion of goods and services to support them.

Not only that, but according to Wikipedia there are 369,000 military personnel stationed outside of the U.S. If we subtract those who are engaged in active combat operations and their supporting units, you are looking at 221,000 people stationed abroad. Heck, we detain more illegal immigrants then that on a yearly basis.

I don't say this can't change. It can. But if you want to avoid the negative economic impact, then it has to be done really slowly. And that won't happen because the US doesn't want to give up their strategic advantages.

Who said anyone actually wants it to change.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Who said anyone actually wants it to change.

Bob did

Btw perhaps I did not phrase it correctly.
The nukes benefited us, simply by the fact that they are stationed here, although France and the UK have them as well. that was deterrent enough, realistically. The additional American nukes did not singularly 'hold back the russkies'.
But regardless of how much the nukes were of benefit (if they were), nukes were not placed here for our benefit. They were placed here for strategic reasones, and the US needed a place to put them. France the UK already had 'em and had too much clout to be trusted with access to US nukes. Germany is out for historical reasons. Spain is too far from the Eastern block. Italy was not to be trusted after WW2. Don't know why they didn't choose the Netherlands but they ended up picking us because we were convencient, available and not a major player.

Btw, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with furthering political gaols. Every country on earth do it. We do it too wherever we can.
But bob seemed to imply that the US was in it for the philantropical angle, which is not true.
And it is also not true that only the US does nice things for the rest of the world. Last time I checked, our military were active in Afghanistan, Uganda, Congo, Benin, Atalanta and Lebanon, mostly on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

The fact is that every country does things like that, including foreign aid.
And usually they get it back when needed as well.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If the US followed my idea, the local economies of many a base-town would be devastated. There are countries that put up with US bases simply because US troops and the resulting support add US$ to the local economy.

My position is that US assets should be deployed domestically to deal with our own issues, now squandered on ingrates. There is also a credibility issue, IMO. We say to others "we can fix you" yet we're a mess at home. It's like the marketing guru who shows up in a 1975 Pinto. Doesn't scream success.