Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8
I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.
Lets take a poll...
Our presence in many countries are far more that protecting them. They also provide a deterrence to our actual and potential enemies. If the Straits of Hormuz was blocked by Iran, oil prices would skyrocket. There are vital shipping lanes that are at stake in the South China Sea. Without bases in Japan, it would be much harder to project our power. Also NATO has provided support in various US missions such as Afghanistan.
When you talk about costs, some things are wrongly added to the cost of overseas bases. Salaries and training are the same whether a soldier is based in the US or Germany. The only real cost is the cost of running the base.
Dick Cheney said it best. “I don’t know, that sounded like a New York state real estate deal to me,”.
I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.
NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)
I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.
Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.
It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.
The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.
If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?
If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed?
After 75 years a lot has changed, The USSR changed, then changed back. Commie China changed, then changed back. The US national debt changed, then got worse, and is now unsustainable. Its a matter of what can the US afford and what is fair. The EU economy is roughly the size of the US, so why can't the EU pay a fair share of their defense? The US can't afford $24b a year to defend the EU from Russia, while the EU buys gas from Russia to fund their military.
Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe?
Ask the Ukraine and Crimea if Russia is still a threat. Poland feels safer with a contingent of US military present. NATO can fill that role as a speed bump as well as the US. Ask Germany if their gas deals with Russia are in NATO's best interest.
Is China no longer a threat in Asia?
US bases may not be as valuable as they once seemed. They can be targeted by a first strike. Its the deterrence of the balance of the US military that stops the bad guys from starting a conflict. Even Trump was surprised how powerful nuclear subs are. What's a better bargain, more targets, or better military responses?
Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?
LOL!! Russia's economy is the size of Italy's. Countries are free to choose who to deal with. If they like China, they can deal, and live with with that decision. If the Saudis want to buy Russian military hardware they can. It didn't work out too well for Saddam though did it?
"They can be targeted by a first strike."
That one statement branded you an amateur. There are no winners in a nuclear war so that will never happen.
As I pointed out, anyone pointing to the military as a place to start cutting into that $22+ Trillion in debt is ignorant to what the real problem and source of our debt is.No one is arguing that overseas bases aren't "convenient" and "strategic". The argument is who should pay for them?
As I pointed out, anyone pointing to the military as a place to start cutting into that $22+ Trillion in debt is ignorant to what the real problem and source of our debt is.No one is arguing that overseas bases aren't "convenient" and "strategic". The argument is who should pay for them?
Again, the Social Programs - Social Security and Medicare, plus Welfare & Food Stamps, account for more than Triple the military's contribution to the debt.
Add in the continued mind-set of politicians on both sides of the aisle that it is ok to continue to ignore the amount of debt we have and the interest on that debt while continuing to add to that debt using our seemingly 'limitless world credit card', and you have 'addicts' - 'spend-aholics' - spending like there is no tomorrow and no chance of there coming a day when that debt is called.
That being said, if you assess the strategic, diplomatic , and economic value of having those bases in other countries versus the fiscal cost of having them there I, like many, would argue that they all but pay for themselves...unlike any other political program in existence.
We disagree that the US needs to continue borrowing to pay for military bases in other countries, that guarantees eventual collapse as the interest on the Debt grows and crowds out all other spending.
We disagree that the US needs to continue borrowing to pay for military bases in other countries, that guarantees eventual collapse as the interest on the Debt grows and crowds out all other spending.
I can live with that. I do not know you, and I do not know your experience with the military or geo-political issues pertaining to the military and its relationship to strategic, economic, and diplomatic policies.
I can tell you 1st hand about negotiations with countries around the Middle East prior to the Afghanistan war, how difficult and intense negotiations were to find nations willing to allow us to beddown aircraft to be strategically positioned to execute military ops. Maintaining those agreements are much easier than getting them from scratch, and they directly contribute to securing and protecting critical resources and relationships that are vital to our national security.
(I am not talking about having 4 - 5 bases in one country and / or numerous 'podunk' outposts in the middle of nowhere in small ass countries.)
There are diplomatic and economic ramifications / impact to having bases in other countries. As stated, it is, in some small part, an indication that you are invested in their defense and success, contributing to a strong alliance.
As I pointed out,, when taking the diplomatic, strategic, and economic impact of having bases in those countries, the military is as close as it comes in 'value' to any program the US govt runs that 'pays for itself'.
Of course, that is MHO based on my own experience and knowledge...again, I have no problem with us agreeing to disagree.
The bigger the country and who they have already aligned themselves with often can impact the effect of having a base 'guaranteeing' allies. I agree that there are some countries we would be better off telling them to pound sand and pulling out.So I call bullshit that big spending on big bases guarantees allies.
Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8
I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.
Lets take a poll...
Our presence in many countries are far more that protecting them. They also provide a deterrence to our actual and potential enemies. If the Straits of Hormuz was blocked by Iran, oil prices would skyrocket. There are vital shipping lanes that are at stake in the South China Sea. Without bases in Japan, it would be much harder to project our power. Also NATO has provided support in various US missions such as Afghanistan.
When you talk about costs, some things are wrongly added to the cost of overseas bases. Salaries and training are the same whether a soldier is based in the US or Germany. The only real cost is the cost of running the base.
Dick Cheney said it best. “I don’t know, that sounded like a New York state real estate deal to me,”.
No one is arguing that overseas bases aren't "convenient" and "strategic". The argument is who should pay for them? The US is tapped out at a $22T Debt and needs to cut back. So this thread is saying, based on Trump's proposal, either other countries help pay for the "world's cop" to have a military presence all over, or the US will close or cut back the size of some of the bases. Its all a matter of affordability.
The costs are much smaller as there are certain expenses that are incurred whether troops are in the US or a foreign country. Whether they are strategic or not is a part of the equation. We are not mercenaries. The fact is there are other areas of the defense budget that should be more concerning. Procurement for example. The USS Gerald Ford has broken its spending caps and there is still more work to be done. That is much more costly. It is about time contractors shared some of the responsibility for these cost overruns.
