It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S Military Imperialism?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:34 PM
The Middle Kingdom, we shaped Japan after our system and look at how bad they are today.

Japan’s government structure, thanks to us.

Their economic structure, partly due to us.

And did you guys know that we had to keep massive number of troops in Japan for 10 years after WWII until they could get back on their own feet again?

Something Souljah should take a look at before pointing out how Iraqi has turned out.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:00 AM
Cowboy Way

Drop a Nuke and then take all the Credit for that Nations Self-Determination to make themselves better and stronger then before. Typical. You think that you are SAVING the Iraqi people? Think again Private - your "PRESIDENT" along with this PNAC friends NEEDS wars and he will seek them wherever he can. It has NOTHING to do with Liberty, Democracy or Freedom. It's just about Profit, Money and Barrels of Oil. If you want to save Livees, go to AFRICA! And STOP hiding behind the Curtain of Freedom and Justice when Illegally invading foreign countries in the Middle East JUST for your Corporate agendas. Your so-called "president" Lied to YOU to all your Fellow Americans and to the Entire World. WoW! What a Noble and Honorable Man he IS!

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Souljah
Cowboy Way

If you want to save Livees, go to AFRICA! And STOP hiding behind the Curtain of Freedom and Justice when Illegally invading foreign countries in the Middle East JUST for your Corporate agendas. Your so-called "president"

didnt we went to Liberia just dat? with our forces around the world u dink the UN be busy over there while we busy over in Asia, Europe, and ME. i dink the UN has an easier time than we do.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:09 PM
Yes, the list I gave to you all is incomplete but hey, who knows of a complete one? It could be the U.S has military bases in almost every nation but no one knows about it or the U.S purposely kept quite about it for their own leverage. Not to mention the rumoured underground bases the U.S Military and all those secret U.S Military bases worldwide.

Furthermore, I don't get the point that having the U.S Military in one's country could benefit the country. Maybe economically yes. The U.S would pay the host country with all sorts of commodities--BRIBE.

It's not Imperialism. We are just busy exporting the one commodity that we can produce better and faster than anyone else on the planet: Security.

However, ambient sound, you said the U.S Military provides security to countries. Then answer me this : What the hell does the host countries' Armed Forces are doing if not provide security to their own country against foreign and domestic threats? I don't suppose they are just for show right?

Or it could be they're just a bunch of militarily trained potato peelers acting as soldiers huh? Let's start a new theory on that.

[edit on 11/10/05 by Heartagram]

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:27 AM
I would recommend doing some actual reading and studying about George Marshall and the "Marshall Plan" before you guys start throwing around a bunch of half baked ideas and partialy formed theories about the US presence around the globe.

It's embarrassing to see how misinformed some of you are. It may be more proof that the public school system in America is actually succeding in it's quest to produce the best candidates and workers for the service based economy that we have grown into.

It's one thing to have opinions, but it is an entirely different thing to run around spewing a bunch of nonsense.

As one of my favorite posters here likes to put things,

History, not just for amatuers anymore.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:19 AM
Souljah, you keep missing the point of the US Military presence for +20 years in your posts. Try reading everything and not taking stuff so out of context. That having been said, take the anger down a notch... or five. Thanks!

WWII did have a major impact on the success of European countries and Japan. Yes, prior to the war they were already successful countries, but during the war thousands of thier workers, who became soldiers, were killed. On top of that, nearly ALL infrastructure (train lines, roads, power plants/lines, etc, etc, etc...) were destroyed. What did the US do after WWII? Rebuilt everything!

As for no one in Africa? We obviously do care, since we send them so much bloody aid. But what happens to it? It's destroyed, captured by different waring tribes or rebel groups, or hoarded by the government. What can we do to stop that aside from overthrowing every government and putting in civilization there? Of course, if we did that everyone in the world would be screaming bloody murder about the US doing something wrong. So since you care so much, what is your plan for bringing the majority of Africa out of the third world?

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Souljah, you keep missing the point of the US Military presence for +20 years in your posts.

Thank You! When I made the original assertion about that, I thought I was pretty specific in saying 20 years, not 2 years, then proceeded to get attacked on Iraq and Afganistan by the usual suspects when I really wasn't intending to discuss them at all.

I stand by my original assertion. Anywhere that the US military has been for at least 20 years or more is a relatively peaceful and stable place unless the occupants started to mess it up once the US left.

The entire point of my assertion which I never really got to was that Western Civilization can only be absorbed through osmosis. This means proximity. In the past, we could be fairly certain that our military personel were some of the best and brightest we had to offer. IMO, these folks have usually provided a good example for the benefits of living in a Western style nation.

Someone also scoffed at my statement that the major US export is "Security". How is it not? We certainly export more military aid and power than goods and services. When was the last time that any nation attacked another nation while a US Military base was there? You pretty much have to go back to Vietnam.

Yes, our prime export is security. We, yes we, kept Europe secure during the cold war. Europe (at least the part of it not conquered by Hitler) was losing WWII until we exported our Security expertise there. Japan had pretty much dominated Asia, including China, until we exported our Security expertise there. The rebuilding is also part of the Security. The rest of the world is pretty safe from Germany and Japan these days, don't you think?

Once again, I never said that this situation was preferable, right, or fair. I know many would prefer to shoot the messanger, but I'm just pointing this stuff out. Since some of you (Souljah) didn't bother to actually read my post fully and didn't actually address the points I was making, I had pretty much given up on this thread. I still pretty much have but I was glad someone noticed what I was really getting at.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:16 AM
the reason there is less usa deployments is because the countries they were in have now been trained by the usa and are deffending by their own with usa support.
freeing up troops ect for more important roles.
these countries places are now finger puppets controled by the us.
"why use your own blood when u can use theirs"?

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:22 AM
Actually the PRC is still edgy when it comes to Japan, and some of us fear a remiliterized Japan.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:41 AM
All those camps are in Korea for the simple reason that the Korean War never ended. They signed an Armistice, but never a treaty actually ending the war. Therefore, technically a state of war still exists between North and South Korea. The dumbest thing you can possibly do is have just a few bases or camps with all your forces in them. You spread your troops out so that one attack won't take out a large number of troops.

As far as the rest of the bases 99% of them are from the Cold War, when most of the world wanted us there to defend them from the USSR, and signed long term treaties for us to stay there.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:08 AM
Have to sort of agree with deltaboy and take exception to the use of the word "imperialism" in this thread's title.

Imperialism denotes empire building, and that is simply not the case. No country has been taken over and made part of the U.S.

Believe me, I've been there and know the difference.

BTW, the definitive list of U.S. military operations and installations is here

[edit on 1/11/2006 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in