That is not true. China and Russia and India do not maintain foreign military bases like we do. We have over 850 and that probably an old number. Russia China India do not do that. Its the US that installs them all over the world close to 1000. Russia, China and India do not do that.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is this Trump's WORST NIGHTMARE
- Thread starter Silverhair
- Start date
Okay, how are we ruling Germany?
And I will mention this
Back in the 70-80's, when I was stationed in Europe - there were some 70,000 + troops in Europe.
Currently that number has almost been cut in half.
In addition there are currently about 40 US bases in Germany.
Over 200 have been closed since the end of the Cold War.
Back in the 70-80's, when I was stationed in Europe - there were some 70,000 + troops in Europe.
Currently that number has almost been cut in half.
In addition there are currently about 40 US bases in Germany.
Over 200 have been closed since the end of the Cold War.
China has a base in Djibouti and joint bases in other countries. Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Guinea, Syria, Libya, Niger, Mali, etc. India has foreign bases, not for troops but for "listening".
The reason these foreign bases and posts (to include US bases and posts) do not contribute to these nations being an empire is their purpose.
The US does not have a foreign military presence in order to govern the countries in which they are located. They are there for strategic purposes.
AND the main strategic purpose for many of those bases and posts are to protect our allies. The US is not the only nation using these military bases.
Why are we in Europe? To protect the EU. This is not all charity - protecting the weak. We have a national intrest in Europe not being conquered (although to a great extent they have been, just not by military forces).
This is the purpose of US foreign bases. To protect our allies and our interests- not to govern the hosting country.
What about empires? Did they not have foreign bases? Yes, to an extent (garrisons to protect trade routes, outposts for security). But for the most part their "foreign" military presence was in conquered territories (like a Roman presence in ancient Jerusalem).
And, in the 70's the purpose of a US military presence was to form a barrier should Russia try to invade Europe.
I was in Bamberg (90's). Their old mission was to destroy bridges to slow Russia from moving west across Europe should it decide to attack. The bridges were built with places to place explosives.
Lol.... we do not rule Germany. We did control part of Germany after WW2. But we do not rule Germany.
It may seem like colonialism to you. But Germany was a good exsmple why it was not. We (along with our allies) controlled Germany for a short period after WW2. But once stabilized we ended our partial-governance.
Were that colonialism we would have established colonies. We did not. Germany could tell us to close our bases and leave (they will not because they want us there for defense and economic reasons).
Colonialism is establishing control over a people to increase wealth and power. Our bases are strategic. They do not increase our wealth (they actually take from our wealth) or power (they are designed to protect our power, but not increase power).
And, the bigger reason it is not colonialism, is our presence does not establish control over the citizens of the host nations.
This is not true. It reflects a spin (indoctrination rather than factual).
When we speak of the law you have to specify what law. The issue comes in when one decides the governing authority.
The US did not violate US law as because of prior federal drug indictments, a lack of diplomatic recognition, and domestic legal rules that allow courts to try captured defendants.
Did the US violate international law? Perhaps. The UN prohibits using military forces on foreign soil without permission.
BUT Canada has violated international law several times (Canada violated the Arms Trade Treaty in 2021, the Basel Convention in 2014, and Article 43 of the IHR in 2013-2016).
The argument goes to what laws are superior. It gets questionable because international law is voluntary.
If Canada has a law that conflicts with a UN law, which is followed?
Is Canada really sovereign? That is the ultimate question and the reason many of us would prefer withdrawal from the UN.
Given the state of many nations, attitudes of people sharing your opinion (just one readon, a minor one), I would prefer the US withdraw from the UN and NATO.
Let the US concentrate on consolation power within its borders, building up offensive and defensive capabilities. Let the EU fall. Then, and only then (prior to true consolidation by the conquering nation), act offensively for defensive purposes. Withdraw and repeat.
There is a historical precedent for using weak nations as buffers. This was the value of Judea for the neo-Persians, the neo-Bablyonians, the Ptolemaic kingdom and Seleucid Empire. It is what the EU has been doing with Ukraine.
The economic pain would be temporary (for the US).
We destroyed their economy.
The Federal Republic of Germany, commonly known as West Germany, was established on May 23, 1949.
Thus US/Allied Occupation ended on 23 May 1949; as the FRG became an independent.
Technailly, Berlin was still under occupation until re-unification - but that was due to (West Berlin) be located in East Germany.
After re-unification - the US/allied as well as Russia military was require to PCS out of Berlin.
Establishment of West Germany
The formation of West Germany marked a significant historical moment.- Date of establishment — The Federal Republic of Germany was officially founded on May 23, 1949.
- Historical context — Its creation followed the division of Germany into occupation zones after World WarII, influenced by Cold War tensions.
- Political significance — The establishment of West Germany was a key step in the political integration of Western Europe during the Cold War.
- Reunification — West Germany remained a separate entity until its reunification with East Germany on October 3, 1990.
Thus US/Allied Occupation ended on 23 May 1949; as the FRG became an independent.
Technailly, Berlin was still under occupation until re-unification - but that was due to (West Berlin) be located in East Germany.
After re-unification - the US/allied as well as Russia military was require to PCS out of Berlin.
BTW - Conan - do you know what SOFA is?
The Soviets had no intention of invading Europe. That was a cold war lie of American Propaganda. We were lied to by the United States of America. Our own Government lied to us. What was the reason for that?
HOW!!!
Yes, German reunification led to significant economic challenges, particularly for the former East Germany, where productivity and GDP per capita lagged behind the West. By 2023, GDP per capita in the East was only 66% of that in the West, highlighting persistent disparities.
Economic Challenges Post-Reunification
The reunification process introduced various economic difficulties.- Productivity Issues — The former East German economy had comparatively poor productivity, linked to its previous socialist structure.
- GDP Disparities — By 2023, East Germany's GDP per capita was just 66% of West Germany's.
- Economic Freedom — Reunification temporarily reduced overall economic freedom in Germany by about 6 to 7 percent.
- Migration Concerns — Economic instability led to concerns about East Germans migrating westward in search of better opportunities.
- Integration Costs — The costs of integrating the two economies were substantial, affecting political and economic stability.
do you have a valid link for that?
Just googled it, so I have a rough idea if you want to explain further.
All governments lie to their citizens. They are secular powers (evil by nature).
But with the cold war it was not based on a lie.
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (with seven Eastern Bloc socialist republics) did create detailed military plans to invade West Germany and Western Europe.
It was also a lasting effect of WW2 and the Soviet Union's ideological expansion. Ultimately socialism destroyed them from within.
You are way behind the times. For some godless reason, we feared German manufacturing fueled by cheap Russian gas. So we severed the connection. We took away cheap Russian gas away from German Manufacturing and replaced it with western sources at 3 to four times the price. This is recent events. Germany was(pass tense) the number four economy in the World. No longer. German manufacturing has even been coming to America for cheaper fuel prices. That's how we destroyed their economy. We hurt Russia and Germany with one stone. A double blow. German manufacturing has been crippled, and Russia was denied the revenue. Remember Trump made Germany not turn on Nordstrom 2 wich was complete and full of gas ready to be pumped, and Biden destroyed it, although Trump claims to have, it was done by the Biden Administration.
You are a good person Salty and would not harm Germany. But those that control this Country are not. That is what a proxy is. The USA has a lot of proxies to use up. We promised to protect the Gulf States and we cannot. We have other proxies to use up. Unfortunately.
The end of the Cold war showed the Soviets had no intention of invading Europe. We had them penned in and restricted. We cut them off economically when ever we could. We were the Aggressors of the Cold War. You did not get the memo? The Soviets had no intentions of invading Europe! History has shown this out! You are still in the Cold War mentality of CIA propaganda. Free yourself, it still colors your world.
Even today we have Russia and China surrounded by military bases!
You do realize that the Soviet Union no longer exists -
Hmm, I wonder if that is the reason the threat against NATO went way down.....
Then several Eastern Bloc countries wanted to join NATO!
Conan - since you refuse to answer about SOFA
there is no need to ask you about REFORGER
I am not. But I am sure they had to draw up all kinds of plans to try to counter the USA at the time. They have to have them right now. Look at how our billionaires looted Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I agree that the US should withdraw from NATO as they can not be depended upon to actually honor article 5. Trum* does seem to waffle on his position.
The result would be that the EU and Canada would then have to be more serious about their defense. Which as it happens they are now doing.
As for the US being able to act offensively for defensive purposes in your scenario of the EU losing and then the US jumping in as the savior well we see how well they are doing in Iran. The US has just shown they have an inflated image of themselves.
From what I see the economic pain the US is now experiencing is just a foretaste of what is to come. The effect of Trum*'s tariffs have not been fully felt yet.
I understand that you want to defend your countries image but you should be realistic in you views.