China wants to build a city in the USA (thanks USA for all your debt) SAY NO!!!

[VandaMan]

Originally Posted by Gallus

Afghanistan was helped by USA to "free from communism", look at the and of story, USA just moved army there when oil investments were in risk, about not much different in Iraq.

What happened in Afghanistan has nothing to do with communism, and as I already said, most of our international military presence isn't like what it is in the middle east.

Originally Posted by m4cgregor

Turn off FOX News. They don't see like that in the rest of the world.

I don't watch network news, and especially not FOX. In fact I lean further left than either major political party in the U.S.

Originally Posted by m4cgregor

Militar Bases are for war. They don' help nobody. Maybe some dictator, o some elite in the power, prefers or need to have marines protecting them. But not the people.

Bases were for war. After the base is no longer needed however, it has often already become integrated into the local economy in such an important way that removing it would hurt the locals. I'm by no means saying we should go plant some more bases in the countries that we missed, nobody wants that. I just mean to say that it is a much more complex situation than you make it out to be.

While the national governments may be opposed to keeping the U.S. military bases (some are not, and want them, to help with their own security) in their land in general, local representation is usually against removing them, and is often able to prevent them being removed by intentionally keeping the issue off the agenda. Back on our side of the fence, most of these bases aren't even useful; their positions are no longer of any strategic benefit to us, and they drive our ridiculous defense spending even higher. So while I, as a U.S. citizen, would be more than happy to see them removed, it isn't going to happen until our parties agree to cut defense spending. This will likely never happen because our brilliant conservatives have decided to intentionally sabotage our national government through poor fiscal policy and supply side economics, in a "starve the beast" attempt at forcing liberals to opt for smaller government... but I won't go there because this short post will very quickly turn into a huge rant.

[ieti]

That was long ago - 10 years or more. Now things are ok. No worries.

[Anpu]

Cluster bombs, graphite bombs to destroy/blackout civilian electric network, destroying city bridges, bombs with depleted uranium, just a few stuff they did. I remember quite well that period, watching every night that shit from 4th floor of hospital I was in. You can still see ruins in the middle of capital city, after 12 years.

I am fine with USA people, but I really do not care if China is going to own your country in any way. "Big fishes eat smaller ones" is maybe bouncing back.

[tjanex]

Originally Posted by Anpu

Cluster bombs, graphite bombs to destroy/blackout civilian electric network, destroying city bridges, bombs with depleted uranium, just a few stuff they did. I remember quite well that period, watching every night that shit from 4th floor of hospital I was in. You can still see ruins in the middle of capital city, after 12 years.

I am fine with USA people, but I really do not care if China is going to own your country in any way. "Big fishes eat smaller ones" is maybe bouncing back.

Nicely spoken :*O and yes I agree with you, it's a though world nothing will change and btw that 'China taking over USA' is absolutely bullshit.

[asterisk]

Originally Posted by standistortion

But it's also easy to forget how bad things could be for all of us. Here in Ireland our pissant little army couldn't protect us from an invasion of enraged chickens. If Korea decided they want this cold, damp island for its strategic importance there is nothing we could do about it without the assistance of foreign defense.

Since when Ireland threatened by Korea and since when a european country needs allies from the other end of world?
Since when US (not citizens of course) decides to interfere, decide and act as a world police force? They go wherever there is interest for them.
Its disappointing people failing to see the obvious, for hundreds of years US try to dominate the world either by brute force either by economic war. What grieves me most is that they find allies in european greedy leaders.

[standistortion]

Did you read -Logans-'s post? The reason for a European country requesting a US military presence is quite clear and easily supported by a little research.

Like Poland, which for years has been asking the USA to come over. Recently they finally agreed on moving F-16 rotations here, amid mother Russia's warning.

The reference to Ireland you quoted me on is hypothetical and meant to reflect on how most nations armies would be unable to stand up to heavily militarized nations without foreign support.

Its disappointing people failing to see the obvious, for hundreds of years US try to dominate the world either by brute force either by economic war.

It's disappointing how people fail to see the obvious, brute force and economic war (in global terms) are the same thing. The days of taking possession of countries and empire building (in the traditional sense) are over, economics make corporations more powerful than governments and they are only interested in managing populace and infrastructures if they can make a profit doing so.

Like I said, China's request to create economic and production zones in the US is the easy option with clearly defined borders and with clearly defined imports and exports. If this proves efficient it will benefit the US economy. If its cheaper to export goods to, say, Europe form the US than the same goods from China then it should boost US exports.

The world already has the hard option, foreign companies either buying out or taking the market from national companies, government contracts going to overseas tenders etc etc. For most nations the majority of the money spent by every individual goes to foreign companies or is spent on foreign goods. There are still wars being fought in every country, the wars are purely economic now, the body count has become the consumer count.

[Leadoffhitter]

Security speech is often used to gain economic power, strategic power or to avoid losing it.

That happens since first social structures.

You're the strong man of the tribe, a conflict against other tribe happens. People on your tribe gives you more food to be ready to fight if needed; suddenly you have more success in social terms because everybody wants you to be happy to defend them; you get favors from bosses from tribe because you can keep it together with your physical abilities; you get more ressources and you get used to it while you begin to know how to use the other's fears that has other kind of abilities (not physical)... At last, you finish to think you deserve it, and they have to pay the tax. Even if there's no final combat because of the initial conflict.

Conflict is over and you begin to talk about the "danger possibilities". Even to create them in secret to regain your preferential treatment, to shout "wolf is coming, wolf is coming!", "we have to defend ourselves" and you finish to have trillions of your currency in military budgets...

This is as old as war is.

Words that have been used to create fear: Communists! Terrorists! Muslims! Christians! Nazis! Fascists! Jewish! Yellow! Red! Blue! and on, and on...

Every conflict is full of this propaganda. And when there's no conflict... too.

Sure it happens in Korea, sure it happens in Ireland. It happens all around the world. So we all need more and more weapons because of the fear. And we finally use them...

Korea never had a conflict with Ireland but I can hear already: Wolf is coming, wolf is coming!

I think that system just helps stronger to get stronger.

last big conflict, WW II, was full of it. Germany had a huge army way before the war began... Jews! Homos! Polish! Communists! Anarchists!

Dunno man. I know war does exist, but I've always asked myself if war would exist if man wouldn't have any weapon. If it's the way I clumsily draw it (Not sure, just writing and thinking about it with your help) spending more and more money on military budget goes against the real security.

Originally Posted by standistortion

It's disappointing how people fail to see the obvious, brute force and economic war (...) are the same thing.

----> IMHO it's not that way, You can use strength to produce but it's harder. (Japan and Germany after WW II facing big debts without using army. It even helped!!)

[asterisk]

Originally Posted by standistortion

Did you read -Logans-'s post? The reason for a European country requesting a US military presence is quite clear and easily supported by a little research.

If you are talking about the 2006 request with a little research you can find out why Poland wanted US help.
From 2006 Reuters: "Poland will ask the United States to back efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies in exchange for agreeing to allow a U.S. anti-missile defense system on its territory, a Polish newspaper reported Monday."

Originally Posted by standistortion

It's disappointing how people fail to see the obvious, brute force and economic war (in global terms) are the same thing. The days of taking possession of countries and empire building (in the traditional sense) are over, economics make corporations more powerful than governments and they are only interested in managing populace and infrastructures if they can make a profit doing so.

I do not disagree in terms that are same but tell that to Libyans and Iraqi people not to mention Yugoslavs 10 years ago. It's not the same fighting missiles with fighting the IMF.

Originally Posted by standistortion

Like I said, China's request to create economic and production zones in the US is the easy option with clearly defined borders and with clearly defined imports and exports. If this proves efficient it will benefit the US economy.

If you check about Special Economic Zone (SEZ) (that is what China is requesting) you will find out that hosting country has minimal or no benefits at all.

[Torcida]

Originally Posted by VandaMan

Most places don't want the military bases removed actually. They stimulate the local economy quite a bit by providing job opportunities and bringing in men with money to spend.

Name 1 country that actually likes being invaded by foreign soldiers

[standistortion]

Poland will ask the United States to back efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies in exchange for agreeing to allow a U.S. anti-missile defense system on its territory, a Polish newspaper reported Monday.

Maybe I've got this wrong but that sounds like Poland is for requesting US protection from Russia. I've no idea what else they gave in return and it sounds like signing a pact with the devil, but it is a justified reason for US military presence in Europe.

It's not the same fighting missiles with fighting the IMF.

No, it isn't which is why I say most of us are very fortunate to live in the times we do with few of us being exposed to the horrors of war.

If you check about Special Economic Zone (SEZ) (that is what China is requesting) you will find out that hosting country has minimal or no benefits at all.

That depends on which news is doing the reporting. Considering other economic zones throughout the world I would expect the educated US populace to be important to China meaning more jobs for US citizens. Even if there isn't a single US citizen employed in these zones, would it be cheaper to fly food in or buy from the US considering the US food production surplus and to fly in raw materials or buy from the US?

After reading through a lot of news articles on this its obvious there are a lot concerns in the US over this issue, mostly economic concerns but also over the potential for China to stockpile arms and weaponry within the US. A few years ago the dollar was on the brink of collapse, if China wanted dominance over the US they would have pushed the dollar over the edge then. China is also the only country to have successfully and relatively humanely addressed my biggest worry for future world peace, overpopulation.