A question about sovereignty. Would you consider......

[Bonhomme Richard]

Would you consider a country that allowed a foreign military occupation a sovereign nation? Can you imagine it here for any reason.
I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that this country has been in the process of re-defining colonialism. We are the most powerful nation in the world by far and just who are we protecting these countries from?
I understand the bases that are currently in countries that lost WWII but beyond that, why in the world would a nation turn over it's country to an outside nation if not for money and keeping the powers that be in place.
These countries that are allowing us to build military bases are not sovereign nations but are protectorates of the United States and we should start labeling them as such. Actually they are one step below Puerto Rico.
Are we protecting those nations or are we protecting our own business interest? It would be fun to see the electorates reaction if they really understood that all these bases (their tax dollars) were being built to protect corporations.

pro·tec·tor·ate (prə-tĕk'tər-ĭt) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A relationship of protection and partial control assumed by a superior power over a dependent country or region.

[MADem]

1. They are WAY below PR or Guam, for that matter

Those folks hold US passports, and are American citizens.

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. What is the step below Guam and Puerto Rico?

I would venture to say Protectorate.

[Ravenseye]

2. Well first - how do you define foreign military occupation

Would our overseas bases count? Like say in Germany now, and even more so during the Cold War when we had how many troops and tanks there to repulse the red hoarde?

How bout South Korea? England? Saudi Arabia? And so on...

What is a foreign military occupation?

by your definitions we have lots of protectorates.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. I understand those bases left over from the outcome of WWII

Whether friend or foe.
I would define military occupation as something more than a token embassy type presence.
And yes, by my definition we do have a lot of protectorates even if you do not count the leftover war presence.

[Ravenseye]

8. Does that count Korea?

Yes leftovers from a War, but if we didn't have troops there what would stop the NOrth Koreans from storming Seoul?

Wouldn't that define South Korea, and maybe even Japan, as protectorates?

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. Yes, they are Protectorates but I guess my question is..........

regarding this new bunch. It seems every one of these new protectorate nations are on shacky ground, not externally (like S. Korea) but internally.
Where do you draw the line?
From our point of view it might be great. We control them and thier markets but it needs to be called what it is.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Technically speaking...

we own the land under those military bases now. It's "American soil", if you will. Part of various peace treaties.

[azndndude]

4. To us, the Indigenous people of this land,

America is under foereign occupation.

[theboss]

5. Depends on where the bases are

The one thing that Rumsfeld acually has correct is that way our military is set-up around the world comes from an outdated model. Of course, Rumsfeld is completely fucking up the transformation of our services, but what do you expect?

Regarding our bases in Europe. This was always a two-way street. Having bases in Europe allowed us to confront and contain the USSR. Having the US play a large role in the defense of their countires allowed Europeans to turn a larger percentage of their budgets over to non-military ventures.

As for our bases in the Pacific, well, we won most of those in war; that's always been the way it works.