NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance103.html

We have troops in 159 regions of the world. If that's not imperialism, what is?

A troll posted this a while ago and he was laughed out of here. You seem to have missed the fact that most of them are guarding embassies.
Is there really any reason why the United States still has 64,319 troops in Germany, 33,453 troops in Japan, and 10,449 troops in Italy – sixty years after World War II?
Yes, Germany and Japan are really US provinces. :rolleyes: (although it is silly to have troops there, I suppose)
And why do we have 31 soldiers in Cote D’Ivoire?
OH NOEZ, 31 soldiers! How the hell are 31 troops imperialism? They can't be a threat even to Cote D'Ivoire.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance103.html

We have troops in 159 regions of the world. If that's not imperialism, what is?

When you rule them?

i don't think the numbers station at Pine gap in NT ,embassies in Canberra or the base that they say going to be here in WA is much of imperialism

A troll posted this a while ago and he was laughed out of here.

Well, maybe the same'll happen to me. At least I'll be man enough to laugh at myself. :p

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance103.html

We have troops in 159 regions of the world. If that's not imperialism, what is?

It is. Since the times of the Philippine war. Imperialism, the supreme phase of capitalism.

Also, there is a reason for US troops in Japan, Germany and Italy... it is the same reason for J/G/I not sitting on permanent seats at the UN while paying a lot more than other countries... that is, we lost WW2 (well, technically Italy tied;) )

When you rule them?

that's not nearly as cost-effective as the current imperial system

that's not nearly as cost-effective as the current imperial system

But it's funner.

Although Donald Rumsfeld once claimed that the United States is not imperialistic and doesn’t seek empires, what else are you going to call this global presence in 159 regions of the world?

a defense partnership.

Do all these countries want U.S. troops on their soil?

yes, obviously, otherwise they wouldnt be there anymore... :headbang:

Is there really any reason why the United States still has 64,319 troops in Germany, 33,453 troops in Japan, and 10,449 troops in Italy – sixty years after World War II? And what are we doing with 1,521 troops in Spain, 414 troops in Honduras, and 347 troops in Australia?

Germany-Defense partnership
Italy-Defense partnership
Japan- This: http://www.monstrula.de/filme/godzilla/pic2.jpg

But it's funner.

until gandhi and pals start marching to the sea to make salt and your soldiers just get tired of hitting them

until gandhi and pals start marching to the sea to make salt and your soldiers just get tired of hitting them

And that's when you raise the taxes and send them off to rot away jails that they made with their own bare hands. Hilarity ensues.

However, the US does have a hegemony over the rest of the world. Being a hyper-power and corporate dominance, but it does also seem that US global power is waining these days, and that the US is on the downfall slope of its power.

eh... no, not really. i dont see your reasoning there.

a defense partnership.



yes, obviously, otherwise they wouldnt be there anymore... :headbang:



Germany-Defense partnership
Italy-Defense partnership
Japan- This: http://www.monstrula.de/filme/godzilla/pic2.jpg

Also, don't all those other 159 nations have troops on our soil? in their embasies?

However, the US does have a hegemony over the rest of the world. Being a hyper-power and corporate dominance, but it does also seem that US global power is waining these days, and that the US is on the downfall slope of its power.

a defense partnership.
Germany-Defense partnership
Italy-Defense partnership


NATO isn't so binding as the WEU. WEU countries are under the obligation of military response in case of attack to a member country, NATO countries aren't. That is, even in case of a direct attack to Italy (for example) the US troops in Italy aren't obligated to help.

WEU countries:
full members:Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, United Kingdom
affiliate members: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenija
permanent observers: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden
affiliate permanent observers: Cyprus, Malta
associate members: Iceland, Norway, Turkey
affiliate associate partners: Croatia, Macedonia (FYROM)
permanent guests to WEU assembly: Russia, Ukraine
special guests to WEU assmbly: Albania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia

http://www.weu.int

Also, don't all those other 159 nations have troops on our soil? in their embasies?


Troops in an embassy aren't on the territory of the host country. An embassy of country X is an exclave of the territory of country X. The walls of the embassy are a border between different countries.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance103.html

We have troops in 159 regions of the world. If that's not imperialism, what is?

I've always claimed that you were an empire. A very dangerous one too.

That guy's information is seriously out of date. He refers to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau as "territories" of the United States. They used to be colonies of the US, yes, but they gained independence a long time ago. (They're still very heavily dependent on the US in many ways, though, and are virtually satellite nations.)

However, the US does still have territories ("colonies"), including Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islandes. The US has been and is a colonial empire in the most traditional meaning of the word (in addition to any others).

You seem to have missed the fact that most of them are guarding embassies.


Nope:


Less sophisticated apologists for U.S. interventionism and imperialism [...] attempt to dismiss U.S. global hegemony over the majority of the planet by claiming that many of the U.S. troops stationed abroad are just embassy guards. Since I have already showed in "Guarding the Empire" that it definitely is not the Marine guards at U.S. embassies overseas that account for the U.S. troop presence in so many countries, I will not address that point again here.

Do read the article before you comment on it.

I didn't know there were 159 "regions of the world". I guess it depends on your definition of "region". Or perhaps your definition of "world", since the author of the article appears to live in a different one from me. :rolleyes:

When you rule them?

Don't have to rule them in order to be considered an empire--you simply have to have a large amount of influence over them. The PNAC people changed the word--switched hegemony for empire--but the net effect is the same. The US is, by any reasonable definition of the word, an empire.

Of course, we're a crumbling empire, with a lot less impact than I suspect most Americans believe we have globally, but we still have an inordinate amount of power for a nation with our size and population.