America's Unwelcome Advances

The Pentagon's foreign overtures are running into a world of public opposition.

Fri August 22, 2008 12:00 AM PST

Imperialism, meaning militarily stronger nations dominating and exploiting weaker ones, has been a prominent feature of the international system for several centuries, but it may be coming to an end. Overwhelming majorities in numerous countries now condemn it—with the possible exception of some observers who believe it promotes "stability" and some United States politicians who still vigorously debate the pros and cons of America's continuing military hegemony over much of the globe.

Imperialism's current decline began in 1991 with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the collapse of its empire. The United States now seems to be the last of a dying species—the sole remaining multinational empire. (There are only a few vestiges of the old Dutch, English, and French empires, mostly in the form of island colonies and other enclaves in and around the Caribbean.) As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made clear, the United States is increasingly stressed by the demands of maintaining its empire through its own military resources. Change is in the air.

According to the Pentagon's 2008 "Base Structure Report," its annual unclassified inventory of the real estate it owns or leases around the world, the United States maintains 761 active military "sites" in foreign countries. (That's the Defense Department's preferred term, rather than "bases," although bases are what they are.) Counting domestic military bases and those on US territories, the total is 5,429.

The overseas figure fluctuates year to year. The 2008 total is down from 823 in the Pentagon's 2007 report, but the 2007 number was up from 766 in 2006. The current total is, however, substantially less than the Cold War peak of 1,014 in 1967. Still, given that there are only 192 countries in the United Nations, 761 foreign bases is a remarkable example of imperial overstretch—even more so considering that official military reports understate the actual size of the US footprint. (The official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss or which the Pentagon for its own reasons chooses to exclude—e.g. in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan.)

"The characteristic form of US power outside its territory is not colonial, or indirect rule within a colonial framework of direct control, but a system of satellite or compliant states," observes Eric Hobsbawm, the British historian of modern empires. In this sense America behaves more like the Soviet empire in Europe after World War II than the British or French empires of the 19th century.

Coke and Smokes
Top 10 sellers at Army/Air Force PX's worldwide

Item	No. Sold
Monster Energy Drink, 16 oz.	689,423
Newport King cigarettes	561,009
Marlboro Light cigarettes	557,462
Mountain Dew, 20 oz.	337,457
Marlboro cigarettes	299,884
Red Bull, 8.3 oz.	265,328
Coca-Cola Classic, 20 oz.	205,078
Monster Low-Carb, 20 oz.	191,891
Pepsi, 20 oz.	187,777
Ice, 8 lb. bag	181,278

*June 2008 sales

To garrison its empire, as of last December, the United States had 510,927 service personnel (including sailors afloat) deployed in 151 foreign countries. This includes some 196,600 fighting in Iraq and 25,700 in Afghanistan.

The reach of the US military expanded rapidly after World War II and the Korean truce, when we acquired our largest overseas enclaves in the defeated countries of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and on Allied turf in Great Britain and South Korea. But despite the wartime origins of many overseas bases, they have little to do with our national security. America does not necessarily need forward-deployed military forces to engage in either offensive or defensive operations, because domestic bases are more than sufficient for those purposes. The Air Force can shuttle troops and equipment or launch bombers from continental American bases using aerial refueling, which has been standard Strategic Air Command doctrine and practice since 1951. Only after the Cold War was well under way did the Strategic Air Command expand into several overseas bases in Canada, England, Greenland, Japan, Oman, Spain, and Thailand in an effort to complicate Soviet retaliatory strategy.

We also project power through our fleet of strategic submarines, armed with either nuclear-tipped or conventional high-explosive ballistic missiles, and some 10 naval task forces built around nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. With these floating bases dominating the seas, we need not interfere with other nations' sovereignty by forcing land bases upon them.

In fact, the purpose of our overseas bases is to maintain US dominance in the world, and to reinforce what military analyst Charles Maier calls our "empire of consumption." The United States possesses less than 5 percent of global population but consumes about one-quarter of all global resources, including petroleum. Our empire exists so we can exploit a much greater share of the world's wealth than we are entitled to, and to prevent other nations from combining against us to take their rightful share.

Some nations have, however, started to balk at America's military presence. Thanks to the policies of the Bush administration these past eight years, large majorities in numerous countries are now strongly anti-American. In June 2008, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee issued a report titled The Decline in America's Reputation: Why? It blames falling approval ratings abroad on the Iraq War, our support for repressive governments, a perception of US bias in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and the "torture and abuse of prisoners." The result: a growing number of foreign protest movements objecting to the presence of American troops and their families, mercenaries, and spies.

The most serious erosion of American power appears to be occurring in Latin America, where a majority of countries either actively detest us—particularly Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba—or are hostile to our economic policies. Most have been distrustful ever since it was revealed that the US stood behind the late 20th-century tortures, disappearances, death squads, military coups, and right-wing pogroms against workers, peasants, and the educated in such countries as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Uruguay. The citizens of Paraguay appear to be recent converts to anti-Americanism thanks to speculation that the US is trying to establish a US military presence there. The only places where American troops are still more or less welcome in Latin America are Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, and, tentatively, Peru, plus a few European colonial outposts in the Caribbean.

In Ecuador, the primary battleground has been Eloy Alfaro Air Base, located next door to Manta, Ecuador's most important Pacific seaport. In 1999, claiming to be interested only in interrupting the narcotics traffic and assisting the local population, the US military obtained a 10-year deal to use the airfield and then, after 9/11, turned it into a major hub for counterinsurgency, anti-immigrant activities, and espionage. Ecuadorians are convinced that the Americans based at Manta provided the intelligence that enabled Colombian forces to launch a March 2008 cross-border attack, killing 21 Colombian insurgents on Ecuador's turf.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Submitted by roy (not verified) on August 22, 2008 - 1:02pm.

The people in this country would think more about our global network of military bases if we had a few Chinese and Russian bases here. Americans would be up in arms if a few Russian privates raped the local prom queen and didn't get tossed in jai.

You are absolutely right,

Submitted by Medifast reviews (not verified) on October 1, 2009 - 8:29pm.

You are absolutely right, roy. Double standards.

Submitted by TheAZCowBoy (not verified) on August 22, 2008 - 2:22pm.

It was nice of the Russians to 'kick' Saakashvilli in the teeth. I mean, now the US/Israel 'homicide twins' know they have their work cut out for them. Arming Georgia on the doorstep of Russia took 'huevos' and now confronting the Russian bear inside his lair will prove equally exciting.

Israel had their little 'incounter' with Hezbollah, summer of 2006, and learned a little about 'how the other side lives. Now the Bushwacker has gone through the same experience.

The Great Satan has forgotten about WTC and needs a new 'reminder.' The Russian bear can do that.

Later this year the Russian fleet will be visiting Venezuela and it will be 'refreshing' to hear that the Russians will be building a future ABM site in Venezuela with the radar installations perhaps in Cuba. Whooppee, then the Great Satan will 'really' know how the 'other side lives!

TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.

dba: IDidntVote4TheBassTewrd@msn.com.

I just hope it doesnt become

Submitted by prk vs lasik (not verified) on October 1, 2009 - 8:32pm.

I just hope it doesnt become a pissing fight.

Submitted by Marymomgret (not verified) on August 22, 2008 - 8:44pm.

AZ Cowboy I think you mean cojones and not huevos. Huevos are eggs. Unless, of course, you are a feminist and meant huevos.
Aside from my petty observation on your terminology, I agree with the essence of your observations.

well picked up lol...

Submitted by asbestos surveys (not verified) on October 1, 2009 - 8:33pm.

well picked up lol...

Submitted by nakis (not verified) on August 23, 2008 - 4:42am.

I wish I could be so positive about the decline of the American empire. I do not believe that the "Great Satan" will give up the dreams of ruling the world very quietly. We all know that empires do not and cannot last. But that doesn't stop them from trying their best and doing their worst.
I long for the day when my nation becomes the nation of our Constitution and the neo-liberal ilk no longer exist. Imagine America working with the rest of the world instead of being at odds with it.
Good article.

Submitted by ThirdWorldCharlie (not verified) on August 23, 2008 - 9:08am.

Modus Operendi of US Empire is establish a surrogate, Our SOB or Farm Supervisor (as in southern plantations) to ‘deliver’ the country. It is a virtual colony and the collectively form the virtual empire. If US administration thinks that natives are not sophisticated enough to understand the subterfuge, they are wrong. They clearly can differentiate those who sell their country to foreigners Musharraf, Husni Mubarak, Saud family etc. But it would be wrong to identify USA alone, because there is a syndicate collectively known as the West which is cause of the mayhem in the world. I characterize it as a biker’s gang, where some ride while many are content with clubhouse privileges. Those in the clubhouse provide support in UN and other international forums; send token troops in campaigns etc, but all derive benefit. It is not surprising that old Empires such as Britain, France, and Japan are all there in the gang. Then there are new wanna be; Poland, Rumania, Denmark etc straining to get more influence and privileges.

Submitted by Dan Mortenson (not verified) on August 23, 2008 - 5:51pm.

If our so-called "Defense" infrastructure operates true to form, Ecuador is due for another US-backed coup; with the purpose of obviating President Correa's promise not to extend our siting agreement when it expires. I'm sure the CIA is working on this too; they're never far away from the dirty tricks that drive our history as a nation. If simple "national interests" aren't enough to get our "defense" establishment up on its hind legs, the implicit threat of China moving into one of "our" bases will do it.

Seriously, this is exactly the sort of "threat" that has led us time and again to interfere in the proper progress of many nations' internal development.

And why do I say "another" US-backed coup, for Ecuador? True, we haven't done any such thing (yet) in the classic military sense; but don't forget the Chicago Boys. These Milton Freidman-steeped "free" marketeers swept into Ecuador a few decades ago, and remade the entire government to be a free-marketeer's wet dream, selling off (to American companies) many perfectly functional and efficient state-run assets, supposedly to alleviate the spiralling inflation caused by economic injustice, itself caused by a massive shift of land from peasant ownership to large private interests.

That's right, the economic "cure" for the rich taking land out of food production in order to produce export crops for profit, was to sell off government functions, and governance itself, to the very same rich people.

Yes, eventually the price of food went down, but that was partly due to decreased demand as impoverished people died off. Sure, the protests at such treatment died off too, but again that was due to the death or imprisonment of the protesters, and intimidation of the rest of the population. Ecuador was deemed a "success" by the Chicago Boys, and held up to the world community as an example of turning a country around.

As always, the blinders of the "free-marketeers" only focused on the riches to be found, in this new easy-in, easy-out method of colonizing; and not on any actual benefits to the population. They called it economic "shock therapy." We should call it just plain shocking.

And as always, our own government, much beholden to these same profit interests, turned a blind eye to the devastation of Ecuadorian culture and autonomy. Instead of a rich, vibrant, self-sufficient and proud people, Ecuador was turned into a company town, the work done by slave-wage peons, for the benefit of foreign landlords and their local minions. This was the "success" of the Chicago School makeover of the country. No big wonder, why they now have an attitude toward us. We've earned every bit of it.

And not only Ecuador, by any means. Central and South America are rife with such stories, where American and American-backed commercial interests invaded and subverted the natural governing processes for their own profit interests. It would be strange indeed, if we were NOT hated, by anyone who still has a brain in this hemisphere.

Hatred toward America is not sour grapes. It's not ignorance of the "benefits" we can bring another country, or of the "security" we promise our willing subjects, for siting rights or other accomodations. It's certainly not the oft-cited "envy" for our way of life. Hatred toward America is nothing more than a memory of the real results of our historic interventions in any country we chose to focus on.

Hugo Chavez, for example, is not paranoid; because we really ARE out to get him. He's seen how we work; and his caution, including raising the world visibility of Venezuala's situation, is perfectly sane. If he first tells us to keep our distance, then publically kicks out our spies, he makes sure that if we DO intervene in his country, we must do it militarily, not from within. He's learned the lesson of American intervention in Central American affairs, and all of America's programmed masses hate him for it.

Submitted by Dan Mortenson (not verified) on August 23, 2008 - 6:13pm.

Just out of interest, I tried to read this article through the mind of a Right Wing troll, but I couldn't get past the second paragraph. It has too many, um, details, and, um, facts in it. Too much reality by far, to fit into a troll's underdeveloped "brain." Not only that, but the facts in it don't lend themselves to twisting; they're too factlike, or "real."

What's a poor troll to do, when confronted by REAL facts, rather than carefully-tailored fact-less talking points?

So, on behalf of troll-kind, I urge you to lighten up a bit, so they can get a toe-hold. Using one's brain hurts, doncha know. Just throw in a couple of crazy assertions here and there, to get their limbic systems pressured up, and they can run with it, troll-fashion.

Otherwise, they'll have to grow brains (ouch! that hurts..).

Submitted by Ben (not verified) on August 23, 2008 - 7:17pm.

This is a clear, concise article. Unfortunately, many citizens of the USA are afraid to speak out against the military-industrial complex - for fear of being called "unpatriotic". You are right to simply make these people aware. Then it would be possible to open their minds to the alternative to this wasteful military spending - less debt and perhaps better schools and hospitals. Many local towns believe that they depend on the local base for civilian jobs and local merchants who supply the base. People can adapt, even if the bases were cut, becoming teachers' assistants or medical assistants. Do we really need one million troops to defend ourselves from the Canadians and Mexicans? How many people actually benefit from the military-indsutrial complex (politicians, bureaucrats, businesses such as Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and others, and their unions)? 5% or 10% of the working population? These 5% or 10% are still outnumbered by the rest, who often lack the facts to decide what they are worth to them.

Submitted by George-UK (not verified) on August 24, 2008 - 8:43am.

I ahve said since I was 21 (46 years ago) that the US was the greatest threat to world peace. Nothing I have seen since has changed my mind. My own spineless politicians, whatever their party, have crawled along in America's wake and done their bidding. I am not proud to be British.

Submitted by Hugo (not verified) on September 4, 2008 - 3:44pm.

beeing a socalled Foreigner in this uni polar socalled democracy and realised the ruling class has long ago decided to be the only Power to rule the rest of the Globe. lets wish them lots of luck,because Lucifer awaits them in Hell.

Submitted by Steve (not verified) on September 5, 2008 - 7:53pm.

"Russia's recent attack on Georgia appears " I know from other interviews Chambers is mistrustful of Russia. But Georgia attacked Osettia and Russian peace troops first, then Russia sent in more troops. The Bush republican US and the deomocratic party US think nothing of flexing and antagonizing, it just more inflated money in their pockets. Speaking out is a clear and presant danger, and many do not believe you when you do, es[ecially on the genocide numbers of the Iraq and Afghan wars. 3rd party miracle is only hope. The 2 party system must be broken.

Submitted by John Lindstrom (not verified) on September 7, 2008 - 4:17pm.

When a plane begins to sputter, will the pilot glide on down safely, or will he fight to gain altitude, resulting in a horrendous crash?

Submitted by Bert (not verified) on September 8, 2008 - 6:05am.

I guess my primary question about all of this defense stuff is, well, maybe two questions, several actually, but we'll stop at two, first question: How many malls could we have built on the MOON, by now, if it wasn't for all of this high-dollar military stuff, and two, would the mortgage meltdown have happened if it hadn't been for the D.C. enablers pre-indenturing as-yet unborn children to 'pay' for all of this? This country's soaked in red ink. Awash. 'My heart will go on' playing in the background, there. People sleeping in their cars kind of stuff. Yet others, those with their collective probosces inserted firmly up the military's exhaust pipe, so to speak, are sittin' pretty fat, and they could frankly give a hoot, apparently, about the plight of either U.S. citizens at home, or citizens of foreign countries whose 'privilege' it is to play host to all 700-plus of these military base things. I 'vote' to have a movement to call for troop movement back to the United States. Bring it all home. If the rest of the world has their heart set on going to hell in a handbasket, there's frankly very little that our troops are going to be able to do about it, other than get taken along for the ride. It's up to the 190-plus other countries out there to retension their footgear, and stand up and be civil and neighborly, or kill each other off, whichever happens to suit their collective mood, and since many of them have been neighbors for quite a while now withOUT the benevolent intervention of the all-digital, 24/7 milidustipleximinizers, well, maybe instead of trying to 'defend' the globe from itself, some of those 'defense' people should be looking for a criminal defense lawyer for themselves. 15 billion dollars' worth of 'oopsie' in Iraf, that we KNOW about, and Congress a la Waxman still on the hunt for more.
If the only thing keeping our Con Me afloat is more 'defense' spending, then it's time to hire new budget people, and charge the states with attaining to new standards of frugality, union lay-buh or no. Reform. Yes, it sucks. But, it doesn't have to hurt, but you DO have to start somewhere...

Submitted by Gloria Paul (not verified) on September 8, 2008 - 4:29pm.

...and the environmental desturction to land, air and
water as a result of all of the bombing and other live
ammo testing at these bases isn't even touched upon.

Submitted by qualla3stfiqui (not verified) on September 8, 2008 - 6:14pm.

That means putting future presidents, including the one elected in November, on notice that only Congress can initiate conflict, and that Congress is willing to penalize any chief executive who attempts to take the Constitution into his own hands.

The Constitution is explicit. Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) states that “Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war.” This doesn’t mean authority to note the fact that the president has started a war. It means authority to start a war.

Those who framed the Constitution were reacting against the British system, in which the king could unilaterally take the entire empire into war. The delegates explicitly rejected a proposal to empower the president to initiate conflict. Elbridge Gerry responded that he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war.” Alexander Hamilton, perhaps as close to a monarchist as anyone attending the constitutional convention, assuaged the concerns of delegates about presidential authority, explaining that it was “in substance much inferior to [that of the king]. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces . . . while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war.”

Submitted by gorgorybmus (not verified) on September 9, 2008 - 4:39am.

No, I believe The AZ Cowboy was correct Marymomgret, huevos, is synonymous with cajones. It has a similar relationship to many other languages in which the word for egg(s) can be slang for ball(s).

Submitted by desertstick (not verified) on September 10, 2008 - 1:45am.

interesting, i thought all in tombstone were of the minutemen type...

Submitted by Fred T. (not verified) on September 10, 2008 - 4:05pm.

Why do leftists hate America so? The perpetual whine of the "blame America first" crowd is so sickening.

The United Staes now, as always , is a force for good in the world.

Submitted by non-american (not verified) on September 11, 2008 - 5:45am.

The US is NOT a force of good; it acts only to protect its interests. If it is for something good, that is incidental. Go read some history of US intervention in Latin America and South East Asia, Fred T.

It's not about leftists. It's about people who can see the truth for what it is, something that is clearly absent in your case.

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 11, 2008 - 8:37am.

Marymomgret, huevos are cojones; they are synonyms. What is irking is the fact that the US doesn't want anybody to say anything about their monumental crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they can criticize at will whem Russia puts Georgia in its place. What hypocrites!

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 11, 2008 - 8:58am.

Of course the US is a force for good - and all our efforts in Latin America have been to prevent forces that abhor human freedom from succeeding. In Guatamala, in El Salvador, in Chile (my favorite example - a Marxist thug was deposed and the American left weeps and wails - please explain to me where Marxism has ever increased human freedom?) - as Jeanne Kirkpatrick so clearly stated -" the citizen of so called "right wing" regimes (Chile, the Phillippinnes, etc) enjoy infinitely more personal freedom than any citizen of a Marxist (Cuba, N. Korea, China,Vietnam, etc) will ever experience.

You should read more history - not the pseudo history of a Howard Zinn but real history.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on September 11, 2008 - 8:32pm.

This is what Ron Paul has been telling us for almost two years. Yet when he brought it up in the presidential debates, he was scoffed at and ridiculed by foriegn-policy-ignorant neo-cons McCain, Romney & Giuliani.

I definitely recommend reading Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback," Michael Sheuer's books "Imperial Hubris" and "Marching Toward Hell," and Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto" for much more on this topic.

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 12, 2008 - 1:29pm.

Fred T, it is evident you are not Latin American because if you were, you wouldn't dare say such foolish things. The US and its policies have only damaged and made us more backward. That you saved us from Communism? And who was paranoic about that? You, of course, who went to bed and woke up frightened about the Reds. That you fought for human freedom? The freedom that you gave Chile with Pinochet? Or maybe the one that Iraq has now? The truth is that you guys don't give a hoot about freedom. If you did, you'd do something about the lack of freedom in client states such as Saudi Arabia and others. You only care about your economic and political interests. Now, how do you define thug? I'm not Marxist or Communist but my ideological differences don't make me confuse terms. Allende was not my kind of politician, but he was a decent man. I'll tell you who a thug is. Thugs are those cowards who do anything to avoid their dutiy with their country (like enrolling in the National Guard not to go to Vietnam). Ot those who in a position of power invade other countries and order mass murders. Ot those who set up gulags and detention centers outside the borders of their country to break the laws that any civilized country must respect. Allende had the balls to kill himself when Pinochet's THUGS were about to storm La Moneda. I guess this is too much to ask from some. Do you want more history, Professor?

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 12, 2008 - 2:14pm.

So it was the United States that made you "backward"?

Tell us again about the freedom enjoyed by the Reds you so admire in Cuba - more than 20,000 opposition/freedom loving citizens executed.

Pinoichet was a patriot who saved his country form Cuba's fate (and what promises to be Venezuela"s fate - BTW- "crater face" Hugo had best remember Salvador)

And you lose any credibility claiming that the USA ordered "mass murder" - we are the most circumspect users of military power in history and have not had a policy of targetting civilians since the Socialst President FDR.

And feel free to get back to me when you can actually cite some real history and not far-left anti-American pap.

And since when does it take "balls" to kill oneself - it is far more the act of a coward.

Submitted by Daniel (not verified) on September 13, 2008 - 4:36am.

While I don't argue with the overall conclusions of this analysis, I do think it necessary to exactly define the difference between "site" and "base." To really get an idea of how many overseas "bases" the US has, consider that a base is a location where a 'large' number of soldiers, sailors and airmen - and their families - are stationed; these folks all have to eat. So, let's take as a pretty good proxy count for actual 'bases' only those locations which have a commissary.

If you look at commissaries.com, you can quickly find that there are 262 commissaries worldwide (incl. USA - there is a convenient 'store locator' function on the home page). Of these, according to my count, the vast majority are located in the US, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam - all very domestic. How many are located overseas? Just 74 - see my list below (I have removed several still in the commissaries.com list - e.g. GEISSEN, KELLEY BARRACKS, GELNHAUSEN - as they have already closed within 2008).

Thus, the US only maintains 74 actual "bases" - or locations with 'large' military personnel concentrations requiring a commissary - overseas. The vast majority of the 761 "bases" claimed in this article should, in fact, be considered as "sites" or facilities. Many of these consist of warehouses, vehicle park compounds, antenna farms, logistics facilities, individual buildings or kaserns, housing compounds and other minor military facilities.

We really need to remember that a base doesn't just comprise a single establishment - there may be numerous smaller facilities, sites, housing areas, schools, etc., associated with the main location - but it's misleading and false to extend all of these into the "base" count just to bolster the argument.

I am not arguing that a lower count of 74 "bases" makes the excessive US military presence overseas any less of a problem. But I do think that in trying to understand what the Pentagon is doing overseas, and in determining the extent of the military presence outside the US, that we need to clearly define our terms.

((Note that my list of commissaries fails to serve as a proxy for military "bases" in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US has very large military troop concentrations, but few (none?) commissaries.))

RAF ALCONBURY
RAF FAIRFORD
RAF LAKENHEATH
RAF MILDENHALL
RAF CROUGHTON
MENWITH HILL
VOGELWEH
WIESBADEN
BAUMHOLDER
RAMSTEIN AB
BAD KREUZNACH
BAD NAUHEIM
BITBURG AB
HEIDELBERG
MCCULLY BARRACKS
MANNHEIM
NEUBRUECKE
SPANGDAHLEM AB
SEMBACH AB
BAMBERG
CHIEVRES
BUEDINGEN
SCHINNEN
SCHWEINFURT
VILSECK
ANSBACH
GARMISCH
GRAFENWOEHR
ILLESHEIM
HOHENFELS
PANZER KASERNE
PATCH BARRACKS
CAIRO
IZMIR
LIVORNO
LAJES FIELD AB
RIYADH
VICENZA
ANKARA
ROTA
SIGONELLA
AVIANO AB
NAPLES NSA
INCIRLIK AB
MINEO
SASEBO FA
KADENA AB
CHINHAE NAS
HANNAM VILLAGE
CAMP HUMPHREYS
CAMP STANLEY
CAMP ZAMA
KUNSAN AB
OSAN AB
CAMP CARROLL
CAMP CASEY
TAEGU
YONGSAN
ATSUGI NAF
CAMP KURE
MISAWA AB
SAGAMIHARA
IWAKUNI MCAS
YOKOSUKA NFA
YOKOTA AB
CAMP COURTNEY MCB
CAMP FOSTER MCB
CAMP KINSER MCB
HARIO VILLAGE
CAMP RED CLOUD
CAMP EAGLE
HARIO VILLAGE
CAMP RED CLOUD
CAMP EAGLE

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 13, 2008 - 3:07pm.

Fred T, you seem to be running out of arguments. Who said that I admire Cuba? Castro has definitely presided over a murderous regime. However, in reading your comments about Chile and your hero Pinochet, it is evident that you belong to the most backward right wing. I wish you had been a Chilean or you had had relatives in Chile at the time of the coup in 1973. Only a Neardenthal can think that a difference of ideology requires the other party to be "disappeared". "Circumspect users of military power"? Yeah, you guys have been so circumspect in Iraq that over a million have already been assassinated there -most of them by the "circumspect" trigger-happy American forces who shoot first and ask afterwards. No, on second thought, I wish you were an Iraqi and all your family had been living in a place like Fallujah in 2004. Then you could tell me about how circumspect the American invaders are. Only in your country can somebody say that FDR was a socialist (That was a joke, I guess). Gosh! You must really be a caveman. Do you really know what a socialist is? To begin with, there was never a socialist regime in the US as opposed to Europe and Latin America. But those arguments are beyond your ideological manichaean view of the world. By the way, everything I just said are facts. I don't need to resort to calling people names, which is the "argument" of the brainless.

Submitted by Trencavel (not verified) on September 14, 2008 - 9:35pm.

Just to clear up a small point of Hispanic vocabulary: 'HUEVOS' is a widespread Latin American slang-term for BALLS, whereas 'COJONES' is more Spanish. You won't here 'cojones' in Colombia, Venezuela etc, but you will hear 'huevos' a lot!

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 15, 2008 - 2:40pm.

So 1 million Iraqis have been "assasinated"? Your point and figures are bogus. Is English your second language? BTW- the major killer of Iraqis are other Iraqis - starting with Saddam and continuing with others.The United States Armed Forces are the only military in history that endangers its own members due to concern for civilian casualties.

And the ordinary Chilean enjoyed more personal freedom under Pinochet than they would have had under the Marxist/Castro disciple Allende.Only far left Castro supporters who wanted to turn Chile into another Marxist basket case were in danger.

And FDR was a socialist - or do you have another explanation for his "New Deal" policies that is different from Socialism?

And BTW - you have presented no "facts" only typical, left-wing anti-American hysteria.

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 16, 2008 - 12:26pm.

You wish my figures were bogus. Actually, the number is one million and a half already and counting, and they have been provided by a serious British medical journal (The Lancet). Of course, they have been assassinated by American forces. How do you call their being bombed by the heroic USAF from 10000 meters above? The invading army calls that collateral damage, but they know full well the terrible effects their bombs cause. Why do you pick on my command of English? Don't you have better arguments? English is not my mother tongue; that's correct. You're funny. Your debating skills are poor indeed. What is your definition of freedom? If somebody cannot speak his/her mind, then that person is not living in a free society. People who did not agree with Pinochet were disappeared. Is that freedom? And Castro has done the same. Am I defending him? Why do you bring him to the discussion? Oh right, I forgot that people like you do not discus; you impose your views because you don't have arguments. Your "arguments" are in the level of ""crater face" Hugo" and "Is English your second language?". Ok, I'll enlighten you this time, but only this time. A lot of people in the US have historically being paranoic about Communism and Socialism, and that's why the New Deal, which put the federal government in control of some areas of the economy smacks, for the masses, of socialism. Socialism is a society where the state owns and administers the means of production and distribution of goods. Von Mises in his seminal work on Socialism has this to say: "The earliest attempts to reform ownership and property can be accurately described as attempts to achieve the greatest possible equality in the distribution of wealth, whether or not they claimed to be guided by considerations of social utility or social justice. All should possess a certain minimum, none more than a certain maximum. All should possess about the same amount--that was, roughly, the aim. The means to this end were always the same. Confiscation of all or part of the property was usually proposed, followed by redistribution." This is socialism. Has something like this ever happened in the US? NEVER. Americans haven't even entertained the idea of carrying out a socialist platform despite the fact that there were both a communist party and a socialist party in your country. However, ideologically and politically, they never took off. These are facts and your ignorance is really irritating me.

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 16, 2008 - 1:37pm.

The "Lancet"? - Are you serious? It is a far left, disreputable rag that is quoted by those who are in denial of its nature but blindly support its far left agenda.

I bring up Castro because Allende was a disciple of his and had just visited Cuba before the freedom fighters removed him from office.

And I asked if English was your second language because you clearly have no idea what the word "assasinated" means.

The US has not killed a million Iraqis - but your friends the islamo-fascist terrorists have killed thousands - and by deliberately targetting civilians.

As for Socialism in the USA - thanks for your grade school level analysis - the fact is that the Democratic party in the US is a socialist party - it has enacted as much socialism (See FDR/JFK/LBJ/Clinton) as it posibly could in a country where individual freedom and responsiblity still are overwhelmingly admired by the majority of citizens. We are on the path to socialism/Marxism/communism and will plunge further into the abyss if Obama bin Biden are elected by the naive, welfare dependent members of our society.

And the average citizen in Chile under Pinoichet enjoyed far more individual freedom than any citizen in a Marxist country (and Marxism/Communism is where Socialism always ultimately desires to go)

As for my so-called "ignorance" pot meet kettle - a paraphrase of an American saying that you might wish to look up.

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 18, 2008 - 11:42am.

Everything that doesn't agree with your view of the world is far left. You even call me leftist without being one. What happens is that people like you see the world through a totally twisted perspective. If somebody doesn't share the crazy ideology that you people have, then that person is not only wrong but should be eliminated as well. You seem to have problems with your own language too. Assassinate means to kill somebody by a violent attack. Isn't that what your government does every day in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places? When you use the word circumspect regarding the use of force by the US, I can only understand that you are either one of those who believe the rethorical flights about liberation and noble intent that accompany your government's military adventures, or you know the truth but don't care. One problem people like you have is your absolute indifference to reality because you not only not disapprove the attrocities committed by your own side but have an incredible capacity for not even hearing about them. Most of the dead in both Iraq and Afghanistan are caused by the murderous actions of American forces. Are you going to compare the effects of an F-16 or the M1 Abrams with those of an insurgent who blows himself up? Which is more lethal? To which you will say that the US is the most circumspect power in history and blah, blah. You're hopeless. I really don't want to continue trying to make you understand what socialism is because you won't. That type of concept is beyond you, and I suppose you have better sources such as the Republicans or maybe some Democrats from the South. As for Chile, it is not surprising for somebody like you (a person who lives thousands of kilometers away) to tell them what is better for them. It is part of a national trait called arrogance. Do you think you know more than them? Because most Chileans agree that Pinochet was an evil government. I guess ignorance is bliss. In the end, what do I care? In Latin America. we call people like you "la caverna". Look up the word in a dictionary and find out what it means.

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 18, 2008 - 3:58pm.

Let's see: you are wrong about:

Assasinate

Wrong about the deliberate targetting of civilians ( terrorists do that - the USA does not)

Wrong about the Democrats being Socialists

Wrong about the Chileans feelings about Pinochet - Marxists hated him - anti-Marxists respected him

Wrong about my ideology - I support freedom and you don't

The major difference between leftists and conservatives is this:

Conservatives believe that all rights are "rights of the individual"

Leftists believe that only "group rights" matter (hence: affirmative action, collectivism, universal health care, redistribution of wealth from those who own it to those who have no rightful claim to it, the coercive power of the state)

Did I omit any of your misconceptions and errors?

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 18, 2008 - 5:39pm.

I'm an idiot.

I bloviate until my face falls off.

I don't have any "facts" to back up my arguments.

I don't have even the slightest understanding of socialism, although I like to use it as an insult as often as possible.

I didn't read this article.

I didn't read Chalmer's book.

I don't care that I don't know what I'm talking about, if I talk louder than you, everyone will think I'm smarter.

I throw around labels without any clue what the mean.

Oh, and I'm wrong about everything I just wrote.

Submitted by Fred T (not verified) on September 21, 2008 - 10:56am.

Oh great - now you are reduced to posting "comments" using my name.

Game over - you lose!

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 21, 2008 - 11:33am.

I thought you had finally made a mea culpa and recognized how out of place your ideas are, but it seems your own nationals can't stand you. I don't have time nor patience to take somebody else's identity. Actually, it's even probable that you yourself did the posting. One last thing: two days ago, there was a survey in Chile asking who was the greatest Chilean of all time. Guess what? Allende won. Mind you, I wouldn't have put him in first place, but that only teaches a lesson: NOBODY has the right to tell other people how to live! Anyway, it's been enlightening to muddle through the deep recesses of a Neanderthal's mind. Good bye, McVeigh's cousin, Cheney's nephew, Bush's stepson. May fate be more generous in your next reincarnation.

Submitted by Major Michael Wise (not verified) on September 22, 2008 - 12:33pm.

As a student in the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, allow me to point out that the U.S. military's presence overseas is with the permission of each host-nation government. One might argue that Guantanamo Bay is an exception, but even Guantanamo Bay exists pursuant to a valid lease which has survived countless Cuban objections in the U.N. Pursuant to the 1934 lease agreement, the lease can only be terminated by mutual consent, and the United States dutifully sends the Cuban government a lease check every single year. The U.S. government does not have any military forces stationed in any other country without permission from the host-nation government, period. The article also fails to mention the billions of dollars in foreign aid the U.S. provides to dozens of countries annually, i.e. USAID and countless other programs. Nor does it mention the countless times U.S. military assets are used for peacekeeping or disaster relief. How many millions of lives have we saved distributing food, water, immunizations, medical treatment, etc. You also neglect to mention the hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers who have given their lives to free the oppressed from WWI to the present day. You're making the mistake of classifying entire countries based on relatively insignificant numbers of protesters. Protesters receive tremendous press coverage, but that doesn't translate into popular support for their cause. Does anyone believe that a majority of South Koreans want all U.S. forces removed from their soil? Over the last decade, U.S. forces in South Korea have transitioned from a leading to a supporting role, and the Korean population is quite content with that arrangement. Also of note are the numerous former Soviet Bloc countries clamoring to join NATO. Finally, the suggestion that U.S. power is eroding in Latin America implies an "imperialist" ambition. A better term is American "influence," and suggestions that it is eroding ignore the facts. Columbia is on the verge of defeating the FARC, most Central American countries enjoy good relations with the United States, and the U.S. military conducts countless exercises and training events with Central and South American countries. Venezuela, however, is on the verge of economic collapse. Chavez is driving the country to economic ruin and his mantra of "blame the Yankees" is falling on deaf ears. The bottom line is the U.S. military bases exist overseas with permission, not by force. The aforementioned thoughts are my own personal views, based on my personal experiences on numerous overseas military exercises. I have always felt welcome in literally every country from Fiji to Ukraine.

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 24, 2008 - 10:37pm.

Major Wise, obviously the US military presence overseas requires the "permission" of the governments of those countries, which not always defend their national interest. Besides, how is that permission obtained? Through a lot of arm-twisting in the form of diplomatic, political and economic pressures, and even outright threats. This is how you got Pakistan on board in your war on terrorism. Foreign aid? The one that comes with strings attached so that most of it reverts to American companies anyway? Disaster relief? When there is a catastrophe somewhere, most countries send help according to their capabilities. Or are you reminding us of the selfless relief you provide? The majority of people don't want to have foreign troops stationed in their lands Why don't you ask the Iraqis or the Afghans? Do you rationally think that people like to have a foreign military next door? Would you like to have a Russian base in the middle of Texas? Or a Chinese military advisory group in California? Those ex- Soviet-bloc countries "clamoring" to join NATO do it for three reasons: joining NATO is a first step to joining the EU, which is their real goal; their elites are most interested in becoming part of the western alliance because of their vested interests; and it's also a way to protect themselves from the Russian Bear. WWII was a military and ideological struggle, and the US won -with the help of half the world. The hundreds of thousands of lives and the billions the US spent got magnificent returns: world domination. The experience that Latin Americans have of the US has been mostly negative. When the US wants their way, they get it, regardless of what the people of the "host" country may want. This imposition is forced in an overbearing and sometimes brutal way. If this isn't imperialism, I don't know what it is. Central America? Are you talking about the hundreds of thousands of lives wasted in El Salvador, many of them as a result of the criminal activities of American-sponsored militias and an American-trained army? Or are you talking about the mining of the Corinto port in Nicaragua in 1984, an act of terrorism under international law? Venezuela may be on the verge of economic collapse as you say, but let them live their lives! Or perhaps you're suggesting your country sends them the economic gurus who did such a fine job in Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and so on? Maybe rest of Latin America should follow Bush's example and nationalize the whole banking system. I agree with you that silly remarks such as "Blame the Yankees" or "Blame Iran" only reflect the oversimplication and stupidity with which the leaders of a nation perceive reality. Here, in Latin America al least, we don't hate Americans. They can come to visit and stay if they want. We, however, don't want any kind of unwanted pressures to do what is opposite to our interests.

Submitted by skazi (not verified) on September 26, 2008 - 3:33am.

ITS NOT COJONES its HUEVOS, if you were smart you would know huevos is a slang term for ball sack. Cojones is like saying I have the testicals to do it, get it? duh

Submitted by Jim (not verified) on September 27, 2008 - 10:09pm.

Skazi, ¿qué sabes sobre cojones o huevos? ¿Es tu idioma el español? Si no lo es, entonces mejor chitón boca! Si lo es, deberías saber que en varios países de América Latina, cojones y huevos se usan indistintamente, señor smarty.

Submitted by Dario (not verified) on October 8, 2008 - 4:03pm.

This article convinces me more than ever that the military machines of every single nation must be abolished before they incinerate this beautiful home-planet Earth, and humanity with it.

Armies are nothing more than parasitic corporate institutions, which not only rob the economy of billions of dollars, they rob our soldiers lives. This is why they brainwash soldiers,and inject them with dangerous pharma drugs during their trainning to turn them into unthinking automatons,who when given a break to visit their families, they kill their wives.

The real reason why they invaded Afghanistan was to get control over the monopoly of narcotics, for everyone knows it is by far more lucrative than the legitimate global economies; and Iraq was next in line due to the fact that Big-Oil owns the US Government, and world economies are imprisoned inside a cancerous "matrix of black crude-oil" created from the beguinning of the twentieth century. This is why Nikola Tesla's unlimited free energy has not been released to the world since 1931.

But by far the most sinister role of the military is when it turns against their own countrymen, and protect tyrannical governments as we have seen happening in Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Mao Tse-Tung's Red China, and more recently Darfur's, and Myanmar's Governments. But if you think this only happens to dictatorship regimes, think again Americans for our country is becoming one. This country is already under martial law. The bailing out of the corrupt banking houses is not to rescue the economy but to pay international bankers who own the Federal Reserve, and wish to further inflate their bank accounts. Their greed knows no bounds. The Pentagon's symbolism is nothing more than a disguised pentagram at the service of "dark forces" who as Ruth Montgomery wrote in her books desire the control of the entire planet. Therefore it is not surprising their recent evil musings of a global empire. They are globalists not only in economic terms but militarily as well.

In fact Americans many Presidents of this nation have betrayed your trust, starting with Woodrow Wilson who sold the Federal Reserve, which is collecting illegally the Income Tax,the IRS and generating dollar bills - with a pyramid and the all seeing eye on top-out of thin air without having the gold reserves to back it. Next comes another weak leader, President Roosevelt who secretly made a deal with Stalin to allow the Russian military machine to first enter Berlin and claim half of Nazy Germany which resulted in the costly cold war that followed. Then comes President Eisenhower who was more interested in golf than in caring for the lives of fellow Americans. Many secret military-medical operations involving the innoculation of mind control drugs, and psychological mind control technics went on under his presidency where street kids, homeless, homosexuals, and American Natives were used as "lab rats".

A parallel, supergovernment called the Majestic Twelve that oversees world affairs rules the United States of America. The United Nations obey these "Majestic Twelve" of which the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds, among ninety other members are enforcing international laws for their benefit. The European Common Market and globalization are their creations. The power of the world resides in the hands of a few. The people of this planet are being set against one another so that they impose their matrix of fear and control upon mankind. The time to unite and expand our minds is now. The lack of awareness is the same as blindness. In this age of information those who remain ignorant and have no interest in seeking the truth are the main victims for they are easily manipulated. Seek the truth Americans and reclaim your freedom while there is time to correct this stark reality.