• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ally bases on US soil

If our allies can not afford bases in their own countries, which is why we are there, how are they going to build a base here?

If they have the money I would prefer they take care of themselves and we can leave.

I'd would rather have reduced expenses than trying to use the military to inflate the economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There we go. We went from "need", to "rather". You see, I'd rather have friendly forces with join training exercises readily available with allied divisions. I'd also love all the money merely having them there would generate. Not to mention the bettered relationships we'd have with those allies.
 
Training. I see the added value in partnered training.

Yes, I would be comfortable for many reasons. Local resources of foreign troops, major economic development (rent, merch), and tighter relationships. I don't buy the paranoia surrounding that.

See my post above this for my opinion why it wouldn't hurt

They'd get the same partnered training as they would with our troops there. And a base of theirs on our soil wouldn't be THAT big of an economic benefit imo.

I do agree that it wouldn't hurt anything to let them have bases here in the US if they wanted. I just don't see any real benefit to it tactical wise. Our bases overseas are meant to be for help against neighboring countries that are..shall we say...less than ideal neighbors. The only less than ideal neighbor that we actually have is Mexico and that's mainly due to corrupt politicians and drug lords. And they have nothing that we couldn't handle easily by ourselves.
 
They'd get the same partnered training as they would with our troops there. And a base of theirs on our soil wouldn't be THAT big of an economic benefit imo.

I do agree that it wouldn't hurt anything to let them have bases here in the US if they wanted. I just don't see any real benefit to it tactical wise. Our bases overseas are meant to be for help against neighboring countries that are..shall we say...less than ideal neighbors. The only less than ideal neighbor that we actually have is Mexico and that's mainly due to corrupt politicians and drug lords. And they have nothing that we couldn't handle easily by ourselves.

HUGE benefit tactically, which is why we have some British and Canadians posted in CONUS. The benefit tactically is they get to know our terrain. They get to train out our turf. If we ever got attacked and needed to call up our allies to help, it's incredibly helpful for them to understand our terrain. It's why we feel so comfortable now in Europe.
 
You said they add zero value to us.

That's why I declare BS. They could REALLY boost our economy. Japan's been telling us this for decades.
They add zero value to our national security.
 
What would be the tactical reasoning for them to put a base in the US?

What is our tactical reason for our bases on foreign soil?
 
They add zero value to our national security.

That's a flat out lie. Having more trained troops vs. less add zero value?

The hell they teach you in the Air Force?

What's more beneficial? Responding to a call with a squad or a platoon? Also, it's not all about national security. It's about relationships and money.
 
What is our tactical reason for our bases on foreign soil?
Initially...to be front line response to a spreading soviet threat. Today, forward bases in case **** jumps off.
 
That's a flat out lie. Having more trained troops vs. less add zero value?

The hell they teach you in the Air Force?

What's more beneficial? Responding to a call with a squad or a platoon? Also, it's not all about national security. It's about relationships and money.
Foreign military bases on US soil adds zero to our national security. What...are you jumpy at Canada rising up? Cuba? mejico? You think we have some radical concerns we cant handle?
 
Foreign military bases on US soil adds zero to our national security. What...are you jumpy at Canada rising up? Cuba? mejico? You think we have some radical concerns we cant handle?

Haha the point is not that we couldn't defend ourselves. The point is having that relationship with other countries willing to die if you get into deep sh*@. That would include having Canadian base presence here. Your question is juvenile.
 
Haha the point is not that we couldn't defend ourselves. The point is having that relationship with other countries willing to die if you get into deep sh*@. That would include having Canadian base presence here. Your question is juvenile.
:lamo

whatever dood.
 
No need. Tell me your particular knowledge deficit, and I'll help.
You felt the need to ask why those bases where there in the first place and you want to pretend someone ELSE has a knowledge deficit? :lamo
 
the reasoning is pretty straight forward. no other country has the resources to locate on our soil and locating on our soil wouldnt address anyone elses security issues. it is useful for us to have bases abroad as it allows projected power to fight a was on the other guys dirt (paraphrase from patton)

Well....

If we put down the same conditions.. then all countries do. You see, the US barely pays anything for having the bases. Power, water, sanitation is usually paid by the host nation, and as for rent ... HAHAHAH.. And when you finally do leave, the clean up costs are... not your problem!
 
Well....

If we put down the same conditions.. then all countries do. You see, the US barely pays anything for having the bases. Power, water, sanitation is usually paid by the host nation, and as for rent ... HAHAHAH.. And when you finally do leave, the clean up costs are... not your problem!

US Spending Over $150 Billion Annually On Overseas Military Bases

The heck are you talking about? The US spends tons on bases. Cite your sources
 
I've always wanted to integrate some training battalions with Israeli units state-side. Their urban warfare tactical training courses are incredible. We could learn a lot from them. I would also support British and Canadian forces stateside.

As to directly answer your question, I can't think of any negative reasons that outweigh the positive. Foreign bases typically generate major income for surrounding towns as well.

As for Japan, they'd have no reason to be here. There more of an in-country defense force. Wouldn't make sense. Maybe Hawaii?

Krav-Maga is about as Israeli as Capoeira is Brazilian. Israel may have the best of the best, from a traditional perspective, and urban martial arts courses are available here in the US, regardless of the country of origin.

Differences between Israeli and American/Other Krav? - Krav Maga Association of America Israeli Self Defense Forums

No need to expand the Military Industrial Complex. See my post on page 1.
 
Would you support an ally, say Britian or Japan, having a base for one for their armed services here in the US? Why or why not? With that do you currently support US bases in other countries? If you support our bases there but not their bases here, what is your reasoning?
The desire to have military bases in other countries but not have a foreign military base in the US is a desire to police the world - to control the world.
 
Krav-Maga is about as Israeli as Capoeira is Brazilian. Israel may have the best of the best, from a traditional perspective, and urban martial arts courses are available here in the US, regardless of the country of origin.

Differences between Israeli and American/Other Krav? - Krav Maga Association of America Israeli Self Defense Forums

No need to expand the Military Industrial Complex. See my post on page 1.

I'm confused as to what a martial arts sector has to do with mountain warfare, marine warfare, airborne operations, money...etc.
 
The desire to police the world to control the world.

Our number of foreign military bases may be greater than that of any other country. To my knowledge we only face terrorism as an immediate threat, which the military has failed to address in the past. That's why our domestic and foreign interests are in pursuing counter-terrorism so aggressively. Military bases would not boost our ability to counter terrorism on our own, which is why we shared intelligence proactively back in 2013 before the NSA got busted.
 
I'm confused as to what a martial arts sector has to do with mountain warfare, marine warfare, airborne operations, money...etc.

If you want mountain warfare, just send them up to Vermont. We've got decent hilly terrain up here. I'm confused as to what a training program with urban terrain has to do with other countries that have similar terrain.

One of these things is not like the other: money.

No need to expand the Military Industrial Complex. Read my post on page 1 yet?
 
If you want mountain warfare, just send them up to Vermont. We've got decent hilly terrain up here. I'm confused as to what a training program with urban terrain has to do with other countries that have similar terrain.

One of these things is not like the other: money.

No need to expand the Military Industrial Complex. Read my post on page 1 yet?

You're missing the point. You must be very ignorant of overseas operations for the US on foreign soil, so I understand why you don't understand why this would be beneficial. You train for everything. Airborne Ops, MWF, open breach, dives, latter marine Ops...

It's a global security measure. It's what you're briefed on in the 5 hour long brief when you arrive to whatever country. Besides the "you can't do this or this" speech
 
Yes, but it in no way pays the full amount .... Take GITMO... or the German bases. On most of those the US pays relatively little rent and utilities. Google it, plenty of stuff about it.

Cite your sources for your claims.
 
You're missing the point. You must be very ignorant of overseas operations for the US on foreign soil, so I understand why you don't understand why this would be beneficial. You train for everything. Airborne Ops, MWF, open breach, dives, latter marine Ops...

It's a global security measure. It's what you're briefed on in the 5 hour long brief when you arrive to whatever country. Besides the "you can't do this or this" speech

You can not understand why I don't understand something, but your understanding of overseas operations may very well be confirmation bias of your point that this would be beneficial stateside.

Maybe you train for everything, or the military trains service members for everything, but I do not train for any of those things. If you're just pimping out the military, I won't try to prove you wrong. It would be better to engage in a meaningful debate than to say "you must be ignorant of" [stuff that the military does].

Maybe your lack of understanding of my lack of understanding is merely a deficiency on your part to address how I addressed your original claim that Israel should have bases here in the US. Saying "that's just how it's done" ain't gonna work for anyone but you and your buddies.
 
Cite your sources for your claims.

General: Cheaper to keep troops in South Korea than U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

and many others. But the far right wing RAND Corporation did a study in 2012... quite revealing. It varies from country to country of course... but

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR201/RAND_RR201.pdf

But claiming that the US takes all the cost is... bull****. Places like Japan and South Korea take a huge majority of the cost of having US bases there. Germany use too, but with the end of the cold war, the Germans got bigger balls and demanded the US paid more for their bases.
 
Back
Top Bottom