Should some countries be allowed to station troops on our (USA) soil?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Are there certain countries that should be patrolling our streets to keep this country safe from ______?

What about some of our staunch allies? Why not have some Canadian troops in NYC?

Why not bring in some South Korean troops to Los Angeles?

What do you think?

[mmonk]

1. Throw in a few predator drones and I say yes.

[xultar]

2. If the guys are really hot then yes.

[guitar man]

36. hey!

there are hot guys here already, why import more? :P

:hi:

[Dappleganger]

3. As long as they are encamped around Phelps' 'church'

sure.

[bluestateguy]

4. It might create jobs

But not for patrolling the streets. That's a civilian law enforcement job.

Maybe we could invite the British back to Detroit after a 200 year absense. They'd need housing, which could revitalize neighborhoods, and after work watering holes and pubs; and Detriot automakers could supply the base with vehicles.

[provis99]

5. there are already Canadian troops stationed in America

at any one time, there are 500-2000 permanently stationed on American soil; they are integrated into the NORAD system. So your question is sort of a moot point.

[prostomulgus]

6. Perhaps Hugo Chavez could send some troops.

They could guard some of our media outlets such as Faux News, EIB network, Wall St. Journal, etc.

[cali]

7. Your post is a tad silly.

no offense but this is a rather pointless post. I know you have a point, but you were better served with your prior post. First of all, in most of the countries where we have bases and troops stationed we do NOT patrol the streets. We don't patrol the streets in Canada or S. Korea, so your question as regards the two countries you use as an example, is moot. Secondly, in both those countries our military is there at the invitation of the Canadian and S. Korean gov'ts.

That's what I think.

[mmonk]

10. I'm willing to bet at least some of the 135 countries we have troops

stationed in might not think it silly.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Also, I bet they absolutely hate the US tax dollars that get spent in their economies... n/t

[mmonk]

44. Some have indicated they had rather we leave.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. So

there is not even a single country's soldiers that should be allowed to be on US soil in case of an international incident? Not patrolling the streets per se but there just in case.

What about UN peace keepers in Cleveland? Would that be okay?

[cali]

14. uh, did I say that? why no, I didn't.

your question is simplistic and the examples you employed are poor ones. I simply pointed that out.

[vadawg]

16. im not sure what situation you believe the UN would be needed for

personally leave the streets to the LEOs and national guard if needed, plus the reason american troops are in foreign countries are due to treaties and agreements between the countries and im sure there are some foreign troops here on assignment. PS i wouldnt trust the UN further than you could throw them if i were you.

[bvar22]

30. I would have preferred the UN to be in the streets of New Orleans...

..after Katrina.

[Bragi]

35. They'd just get drunk and go to the R&R Hall of Fame /ny

[Arctic Dave]

19. SP does patrol in foriegn countries.

And MPs also. They are mostly looking for drunkand disorderly GIs.

[TBF]

33. You've listed 2 countries -

What about the other thousand? Why are we in all those places?

Here's an article about the worldwide network of bases/installations/personnel: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

[warren pease]

39. "... in both those countries our military is there at the invitation of the Canadian...

... and S. Korean gov'ts."


Of course they are. And here's how the invitations were delivered -- by the book, using SOP straight from the pages of the US State Dept. Manual of Preemptive Intervention.





By gum, that really IS a tad silly. More so if it weren't so spot on.


sf


On edit: Getting that damn apostrophe in "gov'ts" right

[Horse with no Name]

8. Really turns the theory on its head doesn't it?

It's okay for US to be on foreign soil, but perish the thought of another country on our soil.:rofl:

edited for spelling error.

[cali]

12. not really. and it's perish, not parish. parish is a religious term

describing a religious district or community. Perish is to die.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Ooh

really got him/her with the spelling/misuse or nounage didn't chya'.

Hurry, wait, wait over there, there's a thread to unrec.

But it's okay for the US to be in other countries for what reason again? I missed it. Refresh my memory. Be selective good citizen.

[cali]

17. sorry, honey, but i use the unrec feature sparingly. Now maybe you run around

unreccing with abandon, dear, but that's just not my thing. I've used it all of three times since it's inception. Perhaps you shouldn't run around making false and silly accusations.

And stop putting words in others' mouths. it's a contemptible little habit. try and break yourself of it.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

21. Wait a minute

Isn't calling me honey condescending or flirtatious or some other PC code violation? Certainly out of character for ya'. You okay?

And by the way I saw you did not capitalize your 'T' at the beginning of oyur last sentence. Doesn't that violate your grammar ethos? Certainly must damage the self-esteem.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

24. Well

if it's meddlesome and dogmatic in your mind that pretty much seals the deal that it's on-target.

[cali]

32. if there's a more stellar example of an utter paucity of critical thinking than that

I honestly don't know what it is. By your sad "logic", you don't believe in marriage equality or prosecuting bushco or IRV or any number of things.

pretty pathetic. actually, spectacularly pathetic.

[Better Believe It]

9. How about Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia to help protect us from capitalists?

:)

[mmonk]

20. Didn't Bolivian President Evo Morales ask to have bases in the US?

[defendandprotect]

15. Probably only if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld can find a way to profit from it .. .!!!

[Ian David]

18. Bush let the Chinese do it during the Olympic torch relay. Also, Blackwater is mostly foreigners.

And Blackwater ran amok during Katrina.

So, for the first time since The War of 1812, George W. Bush allowed foreign troops to occupy U.S. soil.

And Gov. Sarah Palin allowed Germans (civilians) to invade her state (see; http://tinyurl.com/GermanInvasionGate )

[Mari333]

22. rec. and the hubris and arrogance of the USA is always apparent

when asked this question.
knr

[Raskolnik]

25. Do these hypothetical countries have treaties with the U.S. which allow for bases?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[SpartanDem]

26. They already do

as another poster pointed out there is large Canadian force stationed at NORAD. I know Holloman AFB has 700+ German troops stationed there

[MADem]

28. Well, they do. We have troops from most of our allied countries here already.

We have foreign troops at many bases here, and in most of our military educational facilities. We also have people assigned to logistic facilities, because we supply them with their "stuff." We teach them to fly planes, drive ships, and conduct infantry operations. We teach them how to use military hardware. We give them undergraduate, graduate and war/defense college training. They're also stationed at all of their embassies. The Germans have a small "base" at Dulles Airport, near the cargo hangers.

You do understand the purpose of our overseas bases? We're there to protect the HOST country as well as to be forward deployed in the event we need to respond quickly. Because we are over there, their militaries can be smaller. It's a good deal for them. They can save money on defense, because we're picking up a lot of their slack.

There's no "equivalency" issue here, and the purpose of overseas basing isn't "charity" or hands across the sea (though that is a happy consequence in many cases), it's a numbers crunching, "We will protect you if you get attacked in exchange for this jumping off point" excercise. I mean, really, why would a government want to spend that kind of money putting people over here just to show the flag? It's COSTLY to manage a base abroad. Aside from the real estate management, there's the salaries.

And it would make no sense, unless we suddenly need help from, say, the Italians to protect us from, say, the menacing Canadians....or the aggressive Mexicans?

We're more likely to need protection from the Palins of Alaska!

We've got two swell natural protectors--the Atlantic and the Pacific. We don't need the kind of help we're providing to nations without a natural ocean barrier.

[blindpig]

34. omg

Are you really than naive?

Just a benevolent empire, lending a hand?

Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

[MADem]

37. Why don't you try reading and stop ASSuming? You'd sound like you knew your subject if you did that

I'm hardly naive. I spent many years overseas on those goddamned bases, opening them AND shutting them down.

But thanks for your "input." Even though I said absoulutely nothing about "a benevolent empire, lending a hand."

The deal is more like a quid pro quo. Of course, you'd have to have half a clue as to the reasons for how our overseas base agreements are crafted to "get" that. I've participated in basing negotions; I "get" that. You, OTOH, are the snarky naif who likes to play know-it-all on the internet.

You lose.

:thumbsdown:

[blindpig]

42. So, you work with local elites, dividing the spoils.

They line their pockets and give the empire what it wants.

Were you involved in expelling the people of Diego Garcia?

[mmonk]

45. Who is trying to go to war with Italy?

I haven't read about that.

[MellowDem]

29. Sure....

I know of some bad neighborhoods around here that could use some presence, but I doubt they would go there.

We could station them on the Mexican border though, fix our own border problem. Heck, we've been guarding other country's borders for so long, why can't they return the favor?

[Boddingham]

31. Only if they are allowed to force us to quarter them in our homes.

;)

[NeedleCast]

38. We already do have these things

There are thousands of foreign troops in the US at any given time.

I don't know how many are there now, but when I was at CENTCOM (McDill AFB, Tampa) there were over 1000 foreign troops on that post alone. I don't know an exact total but I'd bet there are at least four figures of foreign troops in the greater D.C. metro area. Foreign troops come in from overseas to use our major training bases or participate in exercises there all the time.

[maryf]

40. I LOVE it!

LOL "Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

[Cali_Democrat]

41. Why not? We have a higher murder rate than most, if not all, industrialized countries.

Perhaps we need foreign troops stationed here to help stabilize our country. ;)

[Unvanguard]

43. In principle, I don't see why not. But I'm not sure what purpose they would serve right now. n/t

[lefthandedlefty]

46. What`s good for the goose is good for the gander

If we can do it to other countries why can`t they do it to us?Fair is fair

[KharmaTrain]

47. Didn't We Have Feriners Flying Our Skies After 9/11?

I recall seeing news reports at the time of French, German and British AF groups assisting NORAD in tightening patrols around the major US air corridors?