Please read this article and convince me it never happened or they are wrong in their thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

Why is it if you peacefully protest against those wars you are confronted with this?

I got the link to open and that picture wasn't part of the article.

WHY would you do that? Why would you post an article about Veterans protesting the war along with an unrelated picture of riot police? Are you really Michael Moore?

Please read this article and convince me it never happened or they are wrong in their thinking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

Why is it if you peacefully protest against those wars you are confronted with this?

I got the link to open and that picture wasn't part of the article.

WHY would you do that? Why would you post an article about Veterans protesting the war along with an unrelated picture of riot police? Are you really Michael Moore?

Wow!  I couldn't open the link, but thank you for doing so and letting the rest of us know what he had done. 

THere is nothing wrong with differing opinions, but we shouldn't make up stuff to try and buttress our opinions.  

I understand some of you have been involved in those wars so you need to find ways to justify them and repel arguments that do not.

March 2, 2008

Patriot missiles: Iraq Veterans Against the War

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3444835.ece

hmmm, so the forum software shortens the link all by itself.

And why is it that the US recently showed a picture of how BL would look like using a picture of Gaspar Llamazares.

Why are you asking this question on a Thailand forum of anonymous users? What makes you possibly think any of us could have the answer to your question.

Harcourt of New Zealand the possible exception, of course.

PS: Your link doesn't open for me either. Is it true you used an unrelated photo to make your reference more dramatic?

NoI used a link from some anti war veteran organization which linked to a Flickr page with pictures of anti war rally and there was another link to the article. Sorry if I gave the impression that the picture was somehow related to the article but they were meant to be separate.

1 An article about veterans describing what they experienced on the ground

2 A picture from an alleged (peace) protest

Here a link to how the FBI manipulates a picture. http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/01/16/i...1263662696.html

And if you still do not agree that the invasion is illegal.

Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

On the provisions which enable a nation to wage war, Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.

Self-defense was not in question because neither did Iraq wage war against the USA/UK and clique of sycophants supporting this outrage, nor was international security put at risk because the claims that Iraq had WMD were lies.

Self-defense was not in question because neither did Iraq wage war against the USA/UK and clique of sycophants supporting this outrage, nor was international security put at risk because the claims that Iraq had WMD were lies.

That "clique" was made up of over 30 countries from around the world including the majority of NATO nations.

I tell you what it illegal - taking bribes from Saddam from the Oil-for-Food program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1078967331...2156-email.html

“Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It's surreal; it's just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.

We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.

We're now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars--spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth.

A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit.

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.

The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking.

We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially.

Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.”

Self-defense was not in question because neither did Iraq wage war against the USA/UK and clique of sycophants supporting this outrage, nor was international security put at risk because the claims that Iraq had WMD were lies.

That "clique" was made up of over 30 countries from around the world including the majority of NATO nations.

I tell you what it illegal - taking bribes from Saddam from the Oil-for-Food program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1078967331...2156-email.html

Iraq repeatedly refused to allow UN weapons inspectors to do their job and we have absolute proof that they had WMDs at one time. Just exactly when the weapons were there is not the point. We had every reason to invade.

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.

Since I can't ask Ron, I'll ask you...do you think if the US pulled its troops from these countries there would be more or less innocent people killed? Is that a good thing or bad? How many wars or conflicts are stopped because of American security? I am 100% certain that without the US, the three Baltic states would have been invaded and taken over by Russia. Same goes with China invading Taiwan. We already know Kuwait would just be another Iraqi province. How many more examples are there? Who has been keeping the South Koreans free the past 55 years? Someone here - perhaps on this thread, maybe even Harcourt - even suggested that Indonesia would take a piece of Australia if not for the US. Maybe even China.

That said, I tend to agree more with Ron Paul than not. We should become more isolationist. I'd rather help our neighbors like Haiti than station troops in Germany, Japan or South Korea.

Since I can't ask Ron,

Why not? I have contacted many Congressmen & Senators & gotten replies from all but one.

Here I will help you......

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webret...ouse.gov%2Fpaul

Or web form if you like.....

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?...C&chamber=H

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world.  

That is quite a stretch there.  The US actually has "bases" in 53 foreign countries.  And in some of those countries, the term "base" is a stretch.  The base in Istres, France, for example, is a small Globemaster air-refueling detachment and is aboard a French installation.   THe "base" on Johnston Atoll is a defunct Army base which had a company of MP's whose job was to oversea the destruction of chemical weapons.  The Army has closed their operations, and a small civilian crew now keeps up the maintenance, but no troops or work is being done there.  

The only way you can come up with 130 countries is to count the over 100 countries in which the embassies are guarded by their 12 or 16 Marines in the security guard detachment as well as the countries on which there is a military attache or advisor present.

Yes that oil for food scandal have been wiped nicely under the carpet and I remember seeing an interview with a guy who was pointing at it happening and was made look a bit like a fool when he claimed the amount of money involved was in the hundreds of millions.

Anyway I tried to find back the link to that anti war group but when I use the same search query as yesterday I can't find it. What I remember is that they used some soldiers name maybe the first or last guy that died in Vietnam and something with winter or cold.

Bonobo I am sure that many of the soldiers are going there with the best intentions of trying to help rebuild what was destroyed and that special forces are used to try and find AL Queada leaders and members but what I understand from the article in the guardian is that these sad incidents are not incidents and that they happen quit often. Therefore I can understand that the locals are turning against the coalition forces and try to resist the formation of a central government as well. The Davids commission report is very detailed I can say and it covers many issues including political games and media manipulation. I looked into the anti war movement groups to see what their motives are and most of them say that what they have seen on the ground and what orders have been given (shoot at everything suspicious for example) deep inside they knew what they were doing was wrong but hey you are in the army and then you have to follow orders right? I can also imagine that when as a soldier you go there with the intention to help and then are being shot at or experience friends being killed and see the look of dead bodies blown apart by IED's that it all can get a bit too much and the mind turns into survival mode and when returning home they can have a bit of a problem getting back into normal life again.

I am just trying to figure out what it is that is worth spending so much money on and waisting so many lives.

But for sure political and economic interests are included in some of those reasons but governments around the world want us to believe that the only reason is to fight terrorism.

By the way in the Dutch media it is now said that the guy who made an impression of how BL would look like now, did not know who he was working on......Can you imagine that? Then the other question that is a hot issue in Holland is, how did that underpants bomber got a ticket and boarded the plane apparently without a passport. How was he able to travel at all without having a passport?

We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world.

That is quite a stretch there. The US actually has "bases" in 53 foreign countries. And in some of those countries, the term "base" is a stretch. The base in Istres, France, for example, is a small Globemaster air-refueling detachment and is aboard a French installation. THe "base" on Johnston Atoll is a defunct Army base which had a company of MP's whose job was to oversea the destruction of chemical weapons. The Army has closed their operations, and a small civilian crew now keeps up the maintenance, but no troops or work is being done there.

The only way you can come up with 130 countries is to count the over 100 countries in which the embassies are guarded by their 12 or 16 Marines in the security guard detachment as well as the countries on which there is a military attache or advisor present.

"Quite a strectch" is a polite description. Being the usual politician, he chooses not to let the facts get in the way on a number of issues, in this speech and others. He does make some valid points though, as in the tax issues and the "failed welfare/war state", especially the welfare part of it.

Too Much

Truly a case of missing the forest for the trees.............

If out of that clip/speech all the peanut gallery can come up with is a possibility that the number of troops spread out in the world is a stretch....& yet give no facts to back up the claim that it is wrong is so far removed from the content of the speech that it is truly mind boggling.

So what is the consensus of the gallery then? Continue with the status quo?

While Rome burns? Continue to fund these policing actions to what end?

Myopic MAK MAK ...........

Too Much

Truly a case of missing the forest for the trees.............

If out of that clip/speech all the peanut gallery can come up with is a possibility that the number of troops spread out in the world is a stretch....& yet give no facts to back up the claim that it is wrong is so far removed from the content of the speech that it is truly mind boggling.

So what is the consensus of the gallery then? Continue with the status quo?

While Rome burns? Continue to fund these policing actions to what end?

Myopic MAK MAK ...........

Exaggerating claims tends to put people off. When people do it - whether it's about military bases or handicapped dead children - it gets attention but also sends the message that the facts aren't good enough, that they need to be spiced up, IMO.

Exaggerating claims tends to put people off. When people do it - whether it's about military bases or handicapped dead children - it gets attention but also sends the message that the facts aren't good enough, that they need to be spiced up, IMO.

At the risk of again missing the point...I will say I do not know if it is exaggerated but I have seen it posted many times in many places & it always ranges in the 700 base 130 country range.

Not as I said that it is the main point...... It is well enough to say the US is spread out well beyond its past...current & future means.

Exaggerating claims tends to put people off. When people do it - whether it's about military bases or handicapped dead children - it gets attention but also sends the message that the facts aren't good enough, that they need to be spiced up, IMO.

At the risk of again missing the point...I will say I do not know if it is exaggerated but I have seen it posted many times in many places & it always ranges in the 700 base 130 country range.

Not as I said that it is the main point...... It is well enough to say the US is spread out well beyond its past...current & future means.

It IS well enough to say that the US is spread out well beyond it's means, past, present, and future. The actual figures don't matter if even the most conservative figures also support this premise.

In an aside to this reply....

My handicapped dead children statement was faulty recollection, which I admitted, and so should not be classed as deliberate exageration.

Exaggerating claims tends to put people off. When people do it - whether it's about military bases or handicapped dead children - it gets attention but also sends the message that the facts aren't good enough, that they need to be spiced up, IMO.

At the risk of again missing the point...I will say I do not know if it is exaggerated but I have seen it posted many times in many places & it always ranges in the 700 base 130 country range.

Not as I said that it is the main point...... It is well enough to say the US is spread out well beyond its past...current & future means.

We do have troops spread out - perhaps too much. Is there anywhere to get a list of countries and missions?

Like I posted before, the USA probably wouldn't have so many bases in the Pacific or the Middle East/South Asia if it weren't for sneak attacks. Hopefully the next time someone plans one against us, they'll keep that in mind.

We do have troops spread out - perhaps too much. Is there anywhere to get a list of countries and missions?

Like I posted before, the USA probably wouldn't have so many bases in the Pacific or the Middle East/South Asia if it weren't for sneak attacks. Hopefully the next time someone plans one against us, they'll keep that in mind.

Koheesti:

Try this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite..._military_bases

In addition you might find something at,,,dod.gov... but it might take some digging.

Like I posted before, the USA probably wouldn't have so many bases in the Pacific or the Middle East/South Asia if it weren't for sneak attacks. Hopefully the next time someone plans one against us, they'll keep that in mind.

What are you referring to? Surely not December 7, 1941? .....Because that was 69 years ago & we no longer have any real threats in that way. None

Like I posted before, the USA probably wouldn't have so many bases in the Pacific or the Middle East/South Asia if it weren't for sneak attacks. Hopefully the next time someone plans one against us, they'll keep that in mind.

What are you referring to? Surely not December 7, 1941? .....Because that was 69 years ago & we no longer have any real threats in that way. None

69 years - so what? Is there some kind of time limit no one else knows about? Yes, the Japanese wanted the Pacific for themselves now the USA has had total control over it since 1945. Without the attack on Dec 7, 1941, the situation would probably be different today.

Al Qaeda wanted the infidels (USA & western allies) out of the holy lands of Mecca & Medina (Saudi Arabia). Up until 9/11, how many military bases did the US have in Central Asia, Southern Asia, and the Middle East? A few around the Persian Gulf? Now how many? More than a few that's for sure. Like the Japanese 60 years earlier, they might have won a big victory on that one day but the result was the exact opposite of what they were expecting.

69 years - so what? Is there some kind of time limit no one else knows about?

Yes & No............No there is no Time limit....But Yes seems many do not know that there are how many?? Standing armies with Navy & Air Force Capabilities that can reach any US soil with a military on military attack.....

As for the US having control of Hawaii....I do not count myself as one who would think that is a good thing....at all.

What do you think the reason was that the US wanted it for themselves? Remember that Hawaii was not even allowed Statehood till 1959

Too Much

Truly a case of missing the forest for the trees.............

If out of that clip/speech all the peanut gallery can come up with is a possibility that the number of troops spread out in the world is a stretch....& yet give no facts to back up the claim that it is wrong is so far removed from the content of the speech that it is truly mind boggling.

So what is the consensus of the gallery then? Continue with the status quo?

While Rome burns? Continue to fund these policing actions to what end?

Myopic MAK MAK ...........

 

No, it is not missing the forest for the trees.  It is merely pointing out that there is one specific comment which is a clear exaggeration and distortion of facts.  And that tends to reduce the degree of credibility of the rest of the comments (even if I personally might agree with some of those.  I have a positive opinion of Al Gore, too, but some of his exaggerations give GW opponents ammunition to refute the entire base message.).  

If, for example,  you want to count the 12-man Marine Security Guard detachment at the US embassy in Gabon as a "base," well, OK, the 130-nation number is pretty close.  But the intent of the word "base," as used here, is to infer an actual, combat capability. As far as the technical meaning of "base," the number is 53, give or take a few as bases open and close in a given year.

The argument that the US military is too spread out is a valid argument worthy of discussion, but that discussion should be made with actual facts and figures, not inflated ones.

We do have troops spread out - perhaps too much. Is there anywhere to get a list of countries and missions?

Like I posted before, the USA probably wouldn't have so many bases in the Pacific or the Middle East/South Asia if it weren't for sneak attacks. Hopefully the next time someone plans one against us, they'll keep that in mind.

Koheesti:

Try this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite..._military_bases

In addition you might find something at,,,dod.gov... but it might take some digging.

That Wiki list is an accurate reflection of what most people would consider military bases. And that number is that we have bases in 23 foreign nations. 

We do have more installations, such as the hanger and office space in France that I mentioned, or the JUSMAG here in Thailand. Add those, and the number rises to about 53.

Whether Ron Paul or anyone else thinks that even a base on one foreign country is too many, well, that is something open to debate, but using the 130 number is a simple attempt at exaggerating the actual ground reality.

 

No, it is not missing the forest for the trees.  It is merely pointing out that there is one specific comment which is a clear exaggeration and distortion of facts.  

Could be but as I said where is your facts that makes his statement so exaggerated? What is yours backed up by?

I tend to think Senate & Congress may know a bit about things we do not.

Also as I said I have seen it posted many times over the years & the numbers were always close to that...

I will post just a couple of links below.

But all that aside as I said it is not maintainable period & that will be shown soon enough...but again it will be too late.

Yet I also will admit I see a problem & it has nothing to do with the perceived need for US military Industrial presence around the world.

But a basic economic one. If the US shuts down it will see what a mess it has created when sending home excess troops.

Currently, the United States has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, including the Persian Gulf region nations of Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Thousands of U.S. troops have been based in Germany, Turkey, Japan and South Korea for 50 years or longer.

According to the Pentagon's Manpower Report before Sept. 11 2001 there were 255000 U.S. military personnel in 153 countries

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.

Again not that these three links are the point but it is not RP alone that states such...

Could be but as I said where is your facts that makes his statement so exaggerated? What is yours backed up by?

I tend to think Senate & Congress may know a bit about things we do not.

Also as I said I have seen it posted many times over the years & the numbers were always close to that...

I will post just a couple of links below.

But all that aside as I said it is not maintainable period & that will be shown soon enough...but again it will be too late.

Yet I also will admit I see a problem & it has nothing to do with the perceived need for US military Industrial presence around the world.

But a basic economic one. If the US shuts down it will see what a mess it has created when sending home excess troops.

Currently, the United States has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, including the Persian Gulf region nations of Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Thousands of U.S. troops have been based in Germany, Turkey, Japan and South Korea for 50 years or longer.

According to the Pentagon's Manpower Report before Sept. 11 2001 there were 255000 U.S. military personnel in 153 countries

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.

Again not that these three links are the point but it is not RP alone that states such...

There has been one link posted, and that one has just as much credibility as the others.  The Pentagon's report does not indicate "bases."  It indicates personnel, and as I have explained, that includes each and every Marine security guard at an embassy, each military attache and advisor, and each MAC liaison. THey are all military personnel, and they are all in foreign countries. 

The third quote you have was written by Chalmers Johnson.  Now I know him, have debated with him, and yes, do admire him to a significant extent, but his does have an agenda and he does tend to cherry pick data to buttress his arguments.  

Here is another reference which I got pretty easily:  http://www.monthlyreview.org/docs/0302map1.pdf.  Remove the United States and US territories and Peru from that list, add Iraq, and you have pretty close to the number I originally stated (which was a number I recalled from a DoD briefing I attended.)

The fact that someone determined the number to be 130 and that others have picked up on it does not make it true. Only by the most extreme stretching of a definition of the term "base" can this number be used.

There has been one link posted, and that one has just as much credibility as the others.  

Again I will say ultimately it has little to do with the fact that there is waaaaay too much of it & it is not sustainable.

They are very likely including housing rentals as a part of the count.

I wonder how many apartments are being rented in Bangkok alone to house our US Marine detachment.

This argument is rather like statistics. Did you know that 53.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

There has been one link posted, and that one has just as much credibility as the others.  

Again I will say ultimately it has little to do with the fact that there is waaaaay too much of it & it is not sustainable.

And that is a reasonable and logical opinion that can be defended without resorting to misleading "facts" and exaggerations.

Arguments can be made that this is a waste of resources and detrimental to US security, and arguments can be made that these bases are vital to US security.  But in order for people to make decisions as to that they think is the right way to proceed, they need to be represented with unvarnished data.  Anything else corrupts the decision-making process.

They are very likely including housing rentals as a part of the count.

I wonder how many apartments are being rented in Bangkok alone to house our US Marine detachment.

This argument is rather like statistics. Did you know that 53.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Trivia:  actually, only one Marine House.  By tradition, the security guard detachment Marines are all berthed in one large house.  

But yes, I am sure Chalmers Johnson is including that as well as the desk at the airport which has a two-man MAC liaison (and their apartments) and such.

Now as to your stats on stats, according to my calculations I think the real figure is 51.8%.