Just Who is Threatening Who?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 05:47 PM by Dinogur

But you have to think, How long can America keep up all of its Military bases?

Arent we starting to look more and more like Rome in its End Days? But this time i think America is going to prevent it from failing, by starting something bigger, much much bigger.

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 05:53 PM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by DJW001

Do you not find it odd that the only two countries in the region that don't have American bases or aren't American allies are surrounded by American bases or it's allies? Do you also find it odd that those two countries are being demonized day after day by the media with various different spins? It's also strikes me as odd that these countries are under direct or indirect threats of military intervention. I'm not going to spell it out for you.

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 06:00 PM by DJW001

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I'm not going to spell it out for you.

Why not? Surely you have freedom of expression where you live.

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 07:45 PM by Frira

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I don't blame Iran and Russia for being concerned about American military expansion in the region. It's all but clear what they're trying to do, and they have almost completed their goal.

Please explain what you think it's clear that they're trying to do, and how this map supports your conclusion.

Before I butt in (you didn't ask this of me), I want to state that I agreed with your map-as-propaganda post.

For that matter, the Middle East has been a warmish "Cold War" zone for decades... with or without the US presence; and I think many posting here know nothing about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, nor the Nazi occupation of much of the now Muslim nations (much less, of the Ottomans). At a global level and during the two World Wars, the US learned the lesson from having inadequate military presence in some areas, and so did many of those nations.

How many of those US bases are there in Kuwait, Israel, Djibouti, Oman, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and in Saudi Arabia at the request of those governments? All?

Because history showed they should fear the US, or because history showed them that without the US they should fear everyone else? Anyone who knows the history, knows which motivated those treaties.

Why is the question not being asked, "Who is the US protecting, and from whom?"

----

With that said, I have long been suspicious that the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are tactical moves for a strategy which involves Iran. It may not focus upon Iran as an opponent, but Iran is a part of it-- and Iran will do well to learn to score higher on the "plays well with others" part of its report card-- starting with its own people.

I do not mean because the US thinks it is the "world's policeman," but because when the US sees a threat to strategic oil sources, Iran's violating treaties (such as operating a nuclear weapons research program), oppressing its own citizens, threatening the sovereignty of other nations in speeches (e.g,, anything from an embargo or sealed ports to terrorist acts) or implying a desire to annihilate a "race" of people-- opens the door for military action.

But I think the Iraqi invasion and taking-out Saddam was likely a mere tactic in a greater US strategy-- and Saddam left that door wide open with his "hide the weapons from the UN inspectors" ploy especially after his nerve gassing the Kurdish people-- it matters not that he was bluffing about having the weapons-- his bluff got called.

----

The US has not extended Imperial powers in conquered nations, like Germany, France, England and the Russians once did. So guess which major world power is top on the list to insure that one's own sovereignty can be maintained? That is right. The USA.

The Chinese are out because of Nepal, and India. India and Pakistan can't get along with each other, and both suffer from falling into the Muslim-radical abyss-- the very thing the more modern Middle Eastern States fear more than invasion.

But I don't think most posting to this thread are aware of such things, because they are not blogged often-- snarky of me, but true.

----

And, by the way, if the Swiss ever try to place a chocolate embargo on the US, I am glad to see we are prepared for that!

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 09:13 PM by texas thinker

Very interesting maps no matter how you interpret them. That is a whole lot of American blood and treasure out there. The necessity for that kind of overseas presence certainly can't be honestly justified. If only 25% of all this overseas expenditure was stopped I wonder how much that might cut our defense budget, and how many of our young folks serving could be brought home to control borders and provide service here, improving our domestic problems on many fronts. (overspending, illegal immigration).

reply posted on 11-12-2011 @ 09:40 PM by Ghost375

Originally posted by Atzil321
The united states is estimated to have anything from 700 millitary bases around the world to more than 1,000. They are not an aggressive nation and only have all our best interests at heart by spreading peace and democracy Here is a nice graphic of their grip on our little blue dot. nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com...Click to expand.

We are in 175+ countries! I should clarify, we have troops in 175+ countries. Not sure how many countries have official bases, but where do you keep the troops in a country, if not a "base."
It's unreal.

edit on 11-12-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-12-2011 @ 03:05 AM by Shadowalker

edit on 12-12-2011 by Shadowalker because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-12-2011 @ 05:36 PM by rebellender

2 key countries do not have US Military chess pieces on them...Russia and China. If this was the board game of Risk where would the tokens be in Russia and China....maybe that is the really big picture here

added ::: guess the Risk game dated me

edit on 12-12-2011 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 07:52 PM by cloudyday

I think the U.S. basically inherited the job of global policeman, global banker, etc. from Great Britain after WWII. I'm sure if we saw a map of British bases before WWII they would be just as widespread. The wealthiest country gets stuck maintaining the international system while everyone else freeloads. Hopefully the U.S. can hand-off peacefully to China before we are all bankrupt.

BTW I don't mean to imply that the U.S. is being altruistic by maintaining the international system. The wealthier the country the greater stake it has in maintaining global stability. Smaller countries don't have the same global self interest as larger countries. The problem is the U.S. is too weak to continue and too arrogant to admit it.

edit on 14-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-12-2011 @ 08:35 PM by TheLegend

Originally posted by DJW001
I agree that the US is overvaluing the strategic importance of the area. Petroleum should have been eliminated as an energy source by the end of the last century. As soon as the new technology comes online, the Gulf area will have nothing of any value but year round port facilities for the Russian Federation. Then Iran can go back to living peacefully in the 16th Century where it belongs.

reply posted on 15-12-2011 @ 08:06 AM by Corruption Exposed

reply to post by Frira

They hate you for your freedoms

Get ur done!

reply posted on 15-12-2011 @ 08:42 AM by cloudyday

Originally posted by Frira
But I think the Iraqi invasion and taking-out Saddam was likely a mere tactic in a greater US strategy...

I was thinking that too, but I've never heard anybody present a reasonable explanation. George Friedman from Stratfor seemed to argue that the Iraq invasion was a way to keep Saudi Arabia in check. But here is the best explanation I have heard from President Nasser:

The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something.
Gamal Abdel Nasser

edit on 15-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-12-2011 @ 10:41 AM by Frira

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by Frira
But I think the Iraqi invasion and taking-out Saddam was likely a mere tactic in a greater US strategy...

I was thinking that too, but I've never heard anybody present a reasonable explanation. George Friedman from Stratfor seemed to argue that the Iraq invasion was a way to keep Saudi Arabia in check. But here is the best explanation I have heard from President Nasser:

The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something.
Gamal Abdel Nasser

edit on 15-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

If they are missing self-interest in the motives of others, and assigning only self-interest as a motivator for themselves-- the rest of the world will remain a mystery to them and hence, "stupid." I suspect the differences between Eastern thought and Western thought play into this as well.

The US present form of government has been a around long enough to have developed a global strategy and be relatively adaptive to unforeseen changes. "What if" scenarios have been worked out so that many contingencies have been thought through and plans already exist. Whenever another nation, say Saudi Arabia, make a move, the US has anticipated how to exploit it to its own advantage.

Smaller and newer government-- particularly those not yet taking a world view -- are hopelessly disadvantaged. And each time a government such as Iraq, Libya or Egypt changes governmental leadership, its own strategic plans go out with the leadership and they have to start from scratch. Nations such as Afghanistan have so much internal disparity, that they are utterly blind to external factors.

Whether we like it or not-- this is how it is-- and how it has always been-- and that the US is in a position to take advantage of "playing the game" better-- much of the rest of the world resents it, envies it, and hates it.

So should the US NOT use its resources and abilities to its own advantage-- let opponents gain advantages which cause the US to compromise its own interest and the interests of its economy? Other nations say, Yes-- but the answer unreasonably.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 06:20 AM by TheGreatest

Just looking at the map in the OP you can see why Iran feels it has been backed into a corner, and it either bows to America or shows aggression and stands up for itself.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 07:06 PM by Rothbard

Originally posted by texas thinker
Very interesting maps no matter how you interpret them. That is a whole lot of American blood and treasure out there. The necessity for that kind of overseas presence certainly can't be honestly justified. If only 25% of all this overseas expenditure was stopped I wonder how much that might cut our defense budget, and how many of our young folks serving could be brought home to control borders and provide service here, improving our domestic problems on many fronts. (overspending, illegal immigration).

Very succinctly put. There is no honest justification for this type of military presence in the rest of the world except Imperialism and Empire. This is the exact thing our forefathers and President Eisenhower warned us against. I believe that the American people will suffer even greater than they have in our blood and treasure because of the warmongering done in the name of security and spreading democracy. Ron Paul is this countries only hope.

reply posted on 17-12-2011 @ 09:09 PM by anonentity

reply to post by Dinogur

Thats a great analogy 'Rome in its dying days"..But Rome never died it just changed. When it finaly changed everyone was "Romanised"....Most of the world can be said to have Americanised after the second world war,pheraps the trick is when everything was Romanised the point of its existance had ceased...mabey thats the same with America?

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 07:24 AM by cloudyday

Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by Dinogur

Thats a great analogy 'Rome in its dying days"..But Rome never died it just changed. When it finaly changed everyone was "Romanised"....Most of the world can be said to have Americanised after the second world war,pheraps the trick is when everything was Romanised the point of its existance had ceased...mabey thats the same with America?

What bothers me is that Rome didn't peacefully acknowledge the end of its time. Under Diocletian and Constantine they nationalized assets, raised taxes, increased defense spending, became more authoritarian, etc. I'm afraid that's the route the U.S. will take. We will probably continue trying to be the "indispensable nation" out of pride and turn into something more like the U.S.S.R.

edit on 18-12-2011 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-12-2011 @ 03:04 PM by anonentity

reply to post by cloudyday

Yes you are quite right,all these things you mentioned were all end game stratagies..When these things happened no one really believed in it any more.When the mass of the population are trying to think up stratagies to negate the authoritarian laws, it smells like its all over.Remember Romania?.."They pretend to pay us ..and we pretend to work"

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^