Trump charges allies for US protection "Cost + 50%"

[Lesh]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

I agree.

If they don't want to pay then move all of our troops out. Let them defend themselves.

They all have armies. Let their armies take on any enemies they have.

Oh and they can do without the money we pay them for the bases we use.

More than works for me.

******* idiots.

We have troops there because it's to OUR benefit

It keeps our allies unified and not fighting each other. It keeps the Russian Federation in line.

You people would jump off a cliff if Trump told you to

 

[Claudette]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

I agree.

If they don't want to pay then move all of our troops out. Let them defend themselves.

They all have armies. Let their armies take on any enemies they have.

Oh and they can do without the money we pay them for the bases we use.

More than works for me.

******* idiots.

We have troops there because it's to OUR benefit

It keeps our allies unified and not fighting each other. It keeps the Russian Federation in line.

You people would jump off a cliff if Trump told you to

Our benefit?? How is it to our benefit to spend 24 billion a year to keep troops in Europe??

All those countries have armies. Let them take care of themselves.

You really are quite stupid.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

I agree.

If they don't want to pay then move all of our troops out. Let them defend themselves.

They all have armies. Let their armies take on any enemies they have.

Oh and they can do without the money we pay them for the bases we use.

More than works for me.

******* idiots.

We have troops there because it's to OUR benefit

It keeps our allies unified and not fighting each other. It keeps the Russian Federation in line.

You people would jump off a cliff if Trump told you to

Our benefit?? How is it to our benefit to spend 24 billion a year to keep troops in Europe??

All those countries have armies. Let them take care of themselves.

You really are quite stupid.

no, they are correct, we are not there to defend anyone but to project our military power which is an essential tool in our style of diplomacy for the last 5 decades.

Are you so naive as to think we are there for the benefit of those countries and not our benefit?

who is threatening Italy or Japan?

 

[easyt65]

COUNTRIES SHOULD PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

For Decades liberals whined and complained about the United States defending allies at tax payer expense. 'America should not be paying for 'South Korea's' national security. We need to either bring our troops home or CHARGE Korea for their defense.' Now that we have a President who actually pondered / suggested this aloud - and mainly because it is Donald Trump saying it - Democrats have reversed course and are making a big deal out of it. 'SSDD'.

'Force Projection' - a military term meaning having the capability to respond to hostilities away from the US, anywhere around the world. The US military has aerial refueling planes - tankers - that can form air 'bridges' that can refuel our aircraft to get anywhere in the world, however, there is a limited number of those aircraft, and having actual bases in different parts of the world makes it easier for the United States to respond to conflicts abroad and to support / defend our allies.

'Mutual Benefit' - Having a US base in a country provides that country a measure of security, builds / maintains alliances, and provides monetary / financial benefit. Ambassadors negotiate the details and decide what benefit each nation in the partnership demands / is willing to agree to. Ambassadors also negotiate what the US can and can not do from that base in another country.

For example, just because we have an airbase in a country does NOT mean the US can launch attacks on other nations from that country. Some nations allow us to have bases in their nation as part of a supply chain - cargo in, stored, and out to other bases or on-hand if needed somewhere only. That includes aircraft - aircraft can be based there - to train / move forward to strike base locations, but no launching strikes from their country. There is a whole host of permission levels negotiated.

Without these negotiations, bases, and permissions the United States would be hamstrung, unable to project strength and force when / if needed.

COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

'US bases secure our allies' loyalty': 'LOYALTY' is like Bill Clinton's word 'IS'. It depends on the definition and WHOSE definition.

CASE IN POINT: When the United States invaded Afghanistan and went to war with the Taliban, Pakistan was one of our 'loyal allies'.

Pakistan is like California, in a way. You could split California in half politically north and south, die-hard Democrats in the south with a moderate amount of Conservatives / in the North. Pakistan was / is the same way regarding the Taliban. Northern Pakistan is Pro-Taliban country while the South is against the Taliban. The government has to play a balancing act to keep the country stable.

Every winter the Taliban made / makes their way through several passes into their safe haven of northern Pakistan, and every spring a hoard of rested Taliban return through those same passes to Afghanistan to fight again. We knew this...and northern Pakistan was officially 'off limits'. And, BTW, after all that time looking for UBL, where was he eventually found? PAKISTAN, a couple of hundred yards from a Pakistani Police station / academy or something.

Alliances with nations we need means sometimes 'dancing with the devil' a bit. Another example is Qatar, a nation that is critical for our footprint in the ME. We have known for a while that Qatar supports terrorist groups...yet we still have an 'alliance' - a mutually beneficial alliance - with Qatar. One of the good things about partnering the US is that we keep Iran in check. Iran has agents / people in every country in the ME, especially along / near the Gulf, whispering in their ear that they need to partner with them instead of the US because THEY will always be there, and the US will one day pull out, abandoning them, and they will be left all alone to deal with Iran. So, some of these countries play both sides a little, remaining 'loyal' to us but hedging their bets in case we should fall / pull out.

Demanding countries PAY us for our security sounds great...some may be willing to do so, but if you overplay your hand you might drive them onto the 'arms' of someone else we don't like.

Again, it's all about 'MUTUAL BENEFIT'.

 

[Oddball]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

I agree.

If they don't want to pay then move all of our troops out. Let them defend themselves.

They all have armies. Let their armies take on any enemies they have.

Oh and they can do without the money we pay them for the bases we use.

More than works for me.

******* idiots.

We have troops there because it's to OUR benefit

It keeps our allies unified and not fighting each other. It keeps the Russian Federation in line.

You people would jump off a cliff if Trump told you to

Thank you, George Bush.

 

[easyt65]

Our benefit?? How is it to our benefit to spend 24 billion a year to keep troops in Europe??
All those countries have armies. Let them take care of themselves. You really are quite stupid.

It seems you might have a slightly narrow perspective of what our military is, how it can be used for other things than just as a 'weapon'. Having a military base in another country is not JUST about military power / strength / benefit. The 'military' and the protection it can provide is just one of the selling points Diplomats use in negotiating alliances, pacts, and trade deals.

Having a military base in a country, for example, demonstrates we are committed to that country's success, stability, growth, etc... That is one of the building blocks to / opens the door for other things like TRADE which effects our economy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

COUNTRIES SHOULD PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

For Decades liberals whined and complained about the United States defending allies at tax payer expense. 'America should not be paying for 'South Korea's' national security. We need to either bring our troops home or CHARGE Korea for their defense.' Now that we have a President who actually pondered / suggested this aloud - and mainly because it is Donald Trump saying it - Democrats have reversed course and are making a big deal out of it. 'SSDD'.

'Force Projection' - a military term meaning having the capability to respond to hostilities away from the US, anywhere around the world. The US military has aerial refueling planes - tankers - that can form air 'bridges' that can refuel our aircraft to get anywhere in the world, however, there is a limited number of those aircraft, and having actual bases in different parts of the world makes it easier for the United States to respond to conflicts abroad and to support / defend our allies.

'Mutual Benefit' - Having a US base in a country provides that country a measure of security, builds / maintains alliances, and provides monetary / financial benefit. Ambassadors negotiate the details and decide what benefit each nation in the partnership demands / is willing to agree to. Ambassadors also negotiate what the US can and can not do from that base in another country.

For example, just because we have an airbase in a country does NOT mean the US can launch attacks on other nations from that country. Some nations allow us to have bases in their nation as part of a supply chain - cargo in, stored, and out to other bases or on-hand if needed somewhere only. That includes aircraft - aircraft can be based there - to train / move forward to strike base locations, but no launching strikes from their country. There is a whole host of permission levels negotiated.

Without these negotiations, bases, and permissions the United States would be hamstrung, unable to project strength and force when / if needed.

COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT PAY FOR US PROTECTION / BASES:
2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

'US bases secure our allies' loyalty': 'LOYALTY' is like Bill Clinton's word 'IS'. It depends on the definition and WHOSE definition.

CASE IN POINT: When the United States invaded Afghanistan and went to war with the Taliban, Pakistan was one of our 'loyal allies'.

Pakistan is like California, in a way. You could split California in half politically north and south, die-hard Democrats in the south with a moderate amount of Conservatives / in the North. Pakistan was / is the same way regarding the Taliban. Northern Pakistan is Pro-Taliban country while the South is against the Taliban. The government has to play a balancing act to keep the country stable.

Every winter the Taliban made / makes their way through several passes into their safe haven of northern Pakistan, and every spring a hoard of rested Taliban return through those same passes to Afghanistan to fight again. We knew this...and northern Pakistan was officially 'off limits'. And, BTW, after all that time looking for UBL, where was he eventually found? PAKISTAN, a couple of hundred yards from a Pakistani Police station / academy or something.

Alliances with nations we need means sometimes 'dancing with the devil' a bit. Another example is Qatar, a nation that is critical for our footprint in the ME. We have known for a while that Qatar supports terrorist groups...yet we still have an 'alliance' - a mutually beneficial alliance - with Qatar. One of the good things about partnering the US is that we keep Iran in check. Iran has agents / people in every country in the ME, especially along / near the Gulf, whispering in their ear that they need to partner with them instead of the US because THEY will always be there, and the US will one day pull out, abandoning them, and they will be left all alone to deal with Iran. So, some of these countries play both sides a little, remaining 'loyal' to us but hedging their bets in case we should fall / pull out.

Demanding countries PAY us for our security sounds great...some may be willing to do so, but if you overplay your hand you might drive them onto the 'arms' of someone else we don't like.

Again, it's all about 'MUTUAL BENEFIT'.

you forgot to add that us keeping troops there helps to keep the size of their military smaller so they cannot become a threat to us later.

 

[easyt65]

you forgot to add that us keeping troops there helps to keep the size of their military smaller so they cannot become a threat to us later.

IMO, we do not put bases in locations where we think they could turn on us. Then again, that could fall under that 'dancing with the devil' I mentioned. As I said, we do business with / have bases in locations who already work with / fund terrorists / bad guys.

You make a good point about and an example of 'Mutual Benefit', though. If I am a country and the US wants to man a base in my country, I benefit from security from the US presence. That allows me to have a smaller military which allows me to spend less money of my own military / national defense and more on my own economy, infrastructure, growth.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

you forgot to add that us keeping troops there helps to keep the size of their military smaller so they cannot become a threat to us later.

IMO, we do not put bases in locations where we think they could turn on us. Then again, that could fall under that 'dancing with the devil' I mentioned. As I said, we do business with / have bases in locations who already work with / fund terrorists / bad guys.

You make a good point about and an example of 'Mutual Benefit', though. If I am a country and the US wants to man a base in my country, I benefit from security from the US presence. That allows me to have a smaller military which allows me to spend less money of my own military / national defense and more on my own economy, infrastructure, growth.

There are those that worry about letting Japan get a full strength military again.

I agree that is one of the mutual benefits

 

[blastoff]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I’d cut defense spending judiciously by 10% and we could build a wall around every lefty jerkoff in the country if we wanted to.

For the record I’m big on defense spending, but I’m also very experienced in budgets and what happens to them when no one’s keeping an eye on things. They become fat. It’s just a question of how much fat’s been allowed to grow and generally 10% is about a given starting point IMO.

 

[depotoo]

you are a ******* moron. What the hell is Russia going to do?

so let us guess you flunked out of History 101 you stupid ******* ignorant clown.

Nope, I actually know my history, and I even have the cool "Cold War Victory Medal" for serving my country during the Cold war...do you have one of those...oh wait you never had the balls to serve your country.

There was never a time when Russia was going to take us over and make us all speak Russian.

this is what happens when you drop out of school after the 3rd grade...you end as stupid as you are.

Khrushchev once howled Communism at the United States during a UN speech: "We Will Bury You!".

Check out the southern border and the visa scofflaws. It's happening with the aid of the Democrats, and we all know what they truly are.

Don't tell Golfing Gator about Nikita pounding his shoe on the desk when he howled that quote. He'll say it's a lie. He read it in the Huffington Post.

Feel free to offer some proof of the quote, other than "because I said so". you are a mindless sheep that believes whatever your party masters tell you

How about Benson’s own writing of what he said-

Our Immediate Responsibility | Ezra Taft Benson

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I’d cut defense spending judiciously by 10% and we could build a wall around every lefty jerkoff in the country if we wanted to.

For the record I’m big on defense spending, but I’m also very experienced in budgets and what happens to them when no one’s keeping an eye on things. They become fat. It’s just a question of how much fat’s been allowed to grow and generally 10% is about a given starting point IMO.

The DOD could easily cut 10 to 15 percent if they tried.

I think they could save at least 5% off the top just be getting rid of the "you have to use all your money by the end of the FY or you will get less next year" mentality.

 

[jasonnfree]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

They don't even like Americans all they do is talk trash about us.

Thank your presidents,Saint Ray Goon and tRumpy.

Your post is dripping with liberal hate and intolerance.

Liberal hate and intolerance? So, how is that different than conservative hate and intolerance?

 

[BluesLegend]

Um, no....How about just leaving altogether and make those people defend their own damn dirt?

That would save much more money.

They don't even like Americans all they do is talk trash about us.

Thank your presidents,Saint Ray Goon and tRumpy.

Your post is dripping with liberal hate and intolerance.

Liberal hate and intolerance? So, how is that different than conservative hate and intolerance?

You people are the ones who claim to be tolerant and inclusive.

 

[depotoo]

That goes for all departments. There is always an automatic inflationary increase, if they have.

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I’d cut defense spending judiciously by 10% and we could build a wall around every lefty jerkoff in the country if we wanted to.

For the record I’m big on defense spending, but I’m also very experienced in budgets and what happens to them when no one’s keeping an eye on things. They become fat. It’s just a question of how much fat’s been allowed to grow and generally 10% is about a given starting point IMO.

The DOD could easily cut 10 to 15 percent if they tried.

I think they could save at least 5% off the top just be getting rid of the "you have to use all your money by the end of the FY or you will get less next year" mentality.

 

[easyt65]

There are those that worry about letting Japan get a full strength military again.
I agree that is one of the mutual benefits

True, Japan can still not build any military 'power projection' force / systems. The same rule was negotiated with Iraq once it began re-establishing itself as a self-governed nation. It was not allowed to have fighters with 'long legs', tankers for aerial refueling, and/or bombers of any type. The 1st aircraft initial negotiations allowed to have were helicopters, to attack / defend inside its own borders.

 

[Dragonlady]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.

Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.

It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.

The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Big debate on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump wants to charge US allies the actual cost plus 50% for US forces stationed in their countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...91378986dbb_story.html?utm_term=.6de5012523a8

I can see both sides of this debate:
1. Why should US taxpayers borrow money to protect other countries, such as the EU from Russia, South Korea from NK, Japan from China, ME countries from Iran, etc.? Italy, WTF?? Lets say the cost of the major bases and not the small "lily pads" needed for local access all over.

2. The generals argue that the US bases secure our allies loyalty, and in today's world we need all the allies we can get. We are spending $24b a year to keep US troops in the EU. Trump wants $36b a year to keep them there, otherwise we bring most of them home because we can keep borrowing, the US is tapped out.

Lets take a poll...

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.

Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.

It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.

The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?

Why is it that Russia and China do not need bases in countries to have leadership in those places but we do?

 

[depotoo]

Seriously?
Russia Seeks to Install a Military Base in Coastal Venezuela
Russia considers military bases in Vietnam and Cuba: agencies | Reuters
Current bases

Aerial photos reveal China's military bases across South China Sea

It is kind of cute how you think we are there to protect them and not project our own power across the globe.

I want to see Trump pull all the troops out of Japan after they tell him to pound sand...he does not have the balls for such an action.

I'll take that bet, Japan needs to build up their own military to help police the Pacific, especially NK.
The US military budget is 10x Russia's, and more than the next 15 military budgets combined. That is way more than we can afford. As for "projecting military power", that's what submarines are for. Even Trump was impressed with their capabilities. When we parked 3 carrier battle groups off NK, that got their attention. So I'm not sold on too many military bases, especially in the EU, when the NATO military budgets aren't keeping up.

Rank Country Spending 2018 (US$ Bn.)
1 United States 643.3 ($714b 2019 & $750b 2020)
2 China 168.2
3 Saudi Arabia 82.9
4 Russia 63.1
5 India 57.9
6 United Kingdom 56.1EU
7 France 53.4 EU
8 Japan 47.3
9 Germany 45.7 EU
10 South Korea 39.2
11 Brazil 28.0
12 Australia 26.6
13 Italy 24.9
14 Israel 21.6
15 Iraq 19.6

NATO 2% of GDP Military Spending Guideline (US is pulling the NATO wagon, EU countries riding in it!)

I notice how all of the Russian sock puppets are full bore in favour of getting the troops out of Europe.

Does this mean you don't need a Space Force.

It costs $24b a year to keep the current level of US troops in Europe.
Either they pay to offset those troop costs, or they can defend themselves, and if they need help call.

The $24b or so saved can be used to start the Space Force.

If you are withdrawing all of your troops that you demanded be placed in Europe and Asia to protect against the advent of communism, what has changed? Is Russia no longer a threat in Europe. Is China no longer a threat in Asia. Are Americans willing to abandon their corporate "interests" in these regions when Russian and China take over leadership in these areas?

Why is it that Russia and China do not need bases in countries to have leadership in those places but we do?

 

[Lesh]

Exactly. Germany and Japan.. and even France are stable democracies... now. What happens if right wing parties again gain control of their governments and they begin to try and expand using military force?
We’re right back where we were 150 years ago.