4 ms·

The USA have ~800 military bases over 85 different countries. Russia has 21, all in neighbouring countries. China has only 1 foreign base in Djibouti. Who's ac

The USA have ~800 military bases over 85 different countries. Russia has 21, all in neighbouring countries. China has only 1 foreign base in Djibouti. Who's acting outside of their borders again?

another_story 4y ago
I don't care about the US in this instance, but how many of those bases are wanted by the countries they are in? In most cases it seems US citizens are subsidizing the defense of many other countries.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda. Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
    - lmm 4y ago
      The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US). It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
        lmm 4y ago
        > I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff. > And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there? If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The entity making decisions and benefiting does not heed and does not work to benefit the american taxpayers. The US from the point of view of the rest of the world is the military industrial complex, a network of corruption/compromise of varipus governments and one sided trade treaties, and the interests of american oligarchs. The american taxpayer only benefits insofar as they are goven crumbs so they do not revolt or use what little democratic control they have to reign in the beast. From the point of view of the rest of the world, there is nothing really to distinguish the US from the CCP other than the CCP are slightly more forward thinking in some of their projects in terms of long term benefit to themselves and are (momentarily) more brutally authoritarian. On the US side the main downsides aee they're currently dominant and there is a real danger of the US being taken over by a literal apocalypse cult that seeks climate change as an end to seek rather than merely something to be ignored where possible as the current incumbents do. Other than that, one imperialist is the same as another -- to some degree even for the other countries in the imperial core.
        4y ago
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      Except any country hosting US military bases basically loses their sovereignty. Once you have these bases, you can not discuss removing them. You can not debate the alliance with the US. You can not say no when they ask you to fuck up your entire economy to slightly damage Russia, even tho Russia poses no threat to you nor ever had.
    - Affric 4y ago
      Ah yes... so the loss of sovereignty is no price for Australia to pay at all. The USA extracts more benefit from having a base in Australia than they pay for it.
  - arroz 4y ago
    oh yeah China is engaging (though not declaring) economic war with Australia but ok keep pretending Australia doesn’t want US protection
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      Since when do you need military bases to defend against economic war? Furthermore, the US is waging economic war on half the world since I have memory of it, isn't it time the rest of the world starts to protect themselves?
      - macmuras 4y ago
        All types of wars are tied together. Military intervention can be a next step when you are not getting things done any other way.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  No. Read more history and you'll understand how the US came to have so many foreign bases. Spoiler, they are not the world's saviors.
  - another_story 4y ago
    Yah, never said they were and I understand the history just fine. The question was how many want the bases there.
option 4y ago
ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US. Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases. My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell. Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population. I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil. Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
  - macmuras 4y ago
    This exactly the moment that Ukrainians would like to make quick decision given information at hand. Other countries are making sam choice (e.g. Sweden, Finland). I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option. Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm. I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.

The USA have ~800 military bases over 85 different countries. Russia has 21, all in neighbouring countries. China has only 1 foreign base in Djibouti. Who's acting outside of their borders again?

another_story 4y ago

I don't care about the US in this instance, but how many of those bases are wanted by the countries they are in? In most cases it seems US citizens are subsidizing the defense of many other countries.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda. Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
  - lmm 4y ago
    The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US). It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
      - lmm 4y ago
        > I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff. > And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there? If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The entity making decisions and benefiting does not heed and does not work to benefit the american taxpayers. The US from the point of view of the rest of the world is the military industrial complex, a network of corruption/compromise of varipus governments and one sided trade treaties, and the interests of american oligarchs. The american taxpayer only benefits insofar as they are goven crumbs so they do not revolt or use what little democratic control they have to reign in the beast. From the point of view of the rest of the world, there is nothing really to distinguish the US from the CCP other than the CCP are slightly more forward thinking in some of their projects in terms of long term benefit to themselves and are (momentarily) more brutally authoritarian. On the US side the main downsides aee they're currently dominant and there is a real danger of the US being taken over by a literal apocalypse cult that seeks climate change as an end to seek rather than merely something to be ignored where possible as the current incumbents do. Other than that, one imperialist is the same as another -- to some degree even for the other countries in the imperial core.
        4y ago
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    Except any country hosting US military bases basically loses their sovereignty. Once you have these bases, you can not discuss removing them. You can not debate the alliance with the US. You can not say no when they ask you to fuck up your entire economy to slightly damage Russia, even tho Russia poses no threat to you nor ever had.
  - Affric 4y ago
    Ah yes... so the loss of sovereignty is no price for Australia to pay at all. The USA extracts more benefit from having a base in Australia than they pay for it.
- arroz 4y ago
  oh yeah China is engaging (though not declaring) economic war with Australia but ok keep pretending Australia doesn’t want US protection
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    Since when do you need military bases to defend against economic war? Furthermore, the US is waging economic war on half the world since I have memory of it, isn't it time the rest of the world starts to protect themselves?
    - macmuras 4y ago
      All types of wars are tied together. Military intervention can be a next step when you are not getting things done any other way.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
No. Read more history and you'll understand how the US came to have so many foreign bases. Spoiler, they are not the world's saviors.
- another_story 4y ago
  Yah, never said they were and I understand the history just fine. The question was how many want the bases there.

option 4y ago

ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US. Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases. My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell. Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population. I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil. Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
- macmuras 4y ago
  This exactly the moment that Ukrainians would like to make quick decision given information at hand. Other countries are making sam choice (e.g. Sweden, Finland). I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option. Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm. I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.