Bronson

Forgive me if this has been debated already. But I hate that the US military is stretched beyond its limits, enrollment is low for the obvious reasons and our government has this idea of closing bases in the US making us vulnerable to attack and hurting small town.

It would make better sense to close bases in Europe, Japan, and Korea. Let them defend themselves for a change.

UnsilentMajorty

It would make better sense if you knew what you were talking about before you post.

The U.S. needs a presence overseas because not only are we a part of NATO, but because there are more legitimate threats... Even more so than terrorism... In Eruope and Asia such as China and Korea and even the old Soviet Republic (unsecured nuclear arsenal) because if something did happen, I.E. North Korea decides to invade South Korea, that could destabilize the entire region of Asia both politically and more importantly, economically which the U.S. and the rest of the world is a part of whether we like it or not. That would have far greater impact than if we closed bases here, or overseas.

Also, it doesn't matter if a base is closed or not. Terrorists don't attack military targets. The next 9/11 will be in a major city against civillians since that is what terrorists do.

As far as the wisdom and economics of closing bases... I agree this administration's priorities are seriously fcked up. They expect to wage a war on terror, yet we don't have the means to do so. Hell, we can't even produce enough armored Humvees to keep our kids safe... Yet big corporations keep insisting on outsourcing jobs -- American jobs that include manufacturing that would help solve the above problem -- At the same time. It's sick.

There also needs to be more assistance in shifting a military town's economy once the base closes. This used to happen in the 1990s, but ever since 2000, there seems to be less and less of this efforts. Gees, I wonder why? Coincidence?

Bronson

First of all, I will post about what I like if you don't like it, that is your problem. No is forcing you to respond to posts or to be nasty.

I have the right to my opinion and will voice it.

Lain

Of course you have the right to voice your opinion. The thing is, you should at least give out the current situation going on. Plus, you can't always expect good comments from other people on your comment. That's how news is, to give out opinions or debate against one another whether they are good or bad. (And no, no one's forcing me to reply, thank you).

That said, I don't know what are the top priorities of the U.S government these days. In my opinion, we probably have too many bases here in the U.S (in other countries don't count). Putting them on the list on which gets to close down...I don't know...I really don't have an opinion on this situation.

UnsilentMajorty

This is an ignorant statement.

This is why I was "nasty"... And more to the point, I gave some reasons why the logic of your statement appeared ignorant as well.

As I said, we NEED bases overseas. A lot of this stems from WWII and the post-war reconstruction efforts because a lot of European and Asian countries aren't allowed to have large militaries because of what happened in WWII.

In addition, some countries are very small... Literally, the size of Manhattan in some cases, I.E. Monte Carlo... And therefore don't have enough resources for a full fledged army, navy or air force and thus need the U.S.'s help if they were ever attacked.

I also said there needs to be better post-base closing help for town's to make the transition from a military economy to the private sector. I lived in one such town, Alamdeda, CA, and they were able to successfully do it because of their proximety to San Francisco and being right in the Bay Area (literally), so it was easy for them to switch to high-tech and actually become a movie studio. However, I know this isn't the case for small towns out in the middle of Iowa for example where the entire economy is either military and or agriculture -- Which is also being hit hard thanks to government regulations that are working against farms and favor big businesses in large cities.

So, you can see I have a right to be "nasty" considering even though I didn't quote any articles, I gave you three instances of why your reasoning is flawed (appeared flawed) and backed it up.

SweetLisaLisa

Yes I am because of WilFord Hall. It's a critical place for me and anybody who goes to Lackland Air Force Base. I was born there but I'm also a heart patient. They want to move everything to Fort Sam. Fort Sam would have to triple in size in order to take all the load that Wilford Hall would be sending. On top of that, trainings that usually train at Willford Hall would have to move to FortSam. You have a large group of technical training schools not counting basic training that would rely on Wilford Hall. The Military would incur large expenses in ambulatory services getting people from lackland to fort Sam if necessary. Also, how long would it be before you could get a doctors appt? I already have to wait 3 months. But if everyone went to Fort Sam it would be horrible. Wilford Hall handles active duty and a large group of retirees in this community not to mention the fact that Fort Sam is way on the Northeast Side on a heavily congested interstate.

I know a lot of you may not see that because you don't see where I live but this is how it's going to affect me and I'm not happy about it.

SweetLisaLisa

It's not our job to police the world. It's about time they start taking care of themselves. The reason why their military doesn't grow is because they rely on us too much yet they won't hesitate to turn on us at any chance given.

We should be looking in our own backyard because we've got our own mess to take care of.

Lexis

I truly sympathise with your situation - its an awful thing when a community looses something that is so vital to its existence. But, I have to agree with UnsilentMajority's points about the importance of foreign bases to the US.

Using the example of the bases in South Korea, it seems quite important that America has a base from where they can prepare and supply an army, should the need arise. Bases in Germany have provided medical care for troops that have been med-evaced from Iraq and Afghanistan - therefore, that base is providing a vital service in an area where it is needed.

And who are the unspecified "they" you refer too? American bases are on British soil and we haven't turned against America by any stretch of the imagination.

Take a look at what some of those foreign bases do:

http://www.usafe.af.mil/3affc.htm
http://www.gettingaround.net/shtml/usafe/uk.shtml#mild

I understand it must be hard for you and your community but remember ultimatly why bases have to be closed:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...9/daily36.html

Money can not be funnelled into bases that are not performing as they should be or whose services can be better provided by somewhere else.

UnsilentMajorty

Well, then look at your elected officials as part of the problem.

Like I said before, a lot of these problems are because of mixed-up (or mixed-signal) priorities the current administration is operating on.

This administration wants to wage a war on terror... Yet they cut funding for the actual military -- the men and women on the front lines in terms of wages and benefits as well as maintaining the equipment needed to fight wars like armor for humvees, gas, basic engine parts, etc. -- And then, as an extension of this confusing policy, invade a country that has nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and they wonder why a lot of people are questioning our (their) motives and won't sign up for the military?

The quote from Donald Rumsfeld is exactly the kind of "double speak" this administration operates on. Rumsfeld claims he wants to reduce spending... Yet he also wants to defend America from the terrorists (implied from past speeches). How in the world is he going to do that with almost no military if HE keeps closing bases and cutting benefits? Again, mixed-signals and confusing policies.

It is my opinion we should be spending money on education, affordable healthcare -- real healthcare, not Bush's "Social Security Crisis" -- Bettering our infrastructure, supporting Social Services that help the poor neighborhoods as well as the struggling farmers whose lively hoods are being sold out to foreign countries in favor of cheaper products (including crops) and slave labor (literally) so corporations can make obscene profits.

I also believe in a strong defense... But the best defense is not angering and alientating half the world with arrogant policies that have suspicious motives, aka invading Iraq and the Middle-East, that benefit only the major corporations like Haliburton and Global Dynamics (military contractors who make money when wars are fought and people die).

So, as you can see... There are a lot of things going on with regard to the problems in our "backyard", but again, it is mostly because of those in charge -- Be they at the state, local or national level and mostly because they are more concerned with big business and special interests more than people like you and our well-being.

Is there a solution?

The big one is to not vote persons into office like the current administration...

But evidently, this is what the American people want. At least half, so I have no sympathy for them. I say this not to be nasty, but because maybe the importance of an informed vote will be the best thing to come out of this period of time if things get any worse as far as the economy and base closing goes.

In Fair Verona

No, it isn't our job to police the world - but we have made it so. Nobody forced us to do it, we pretty much took up the job willingly. I'm not talking about just this administration either. But don't think that we don't get anything out of 'policing the world'. Having overseas bases and keeping our prescence in foreign countries exerts our power to them as well, and that is what raises hegemony, heg is what keeps us all warm and safe in our beds at night.

And, I admit, I say this all from a conservative POV, but we would not be the number one superpower in the world if we did not spread our power. It extends way beyond our homeland and makes a ton of people dependent on us. I'd say it's a fair trade. I mean, you can't believe the US is over there protecting east Asians out of the goodness of their hearts. We do get something out of it.

And yes, we should definitely be fixing our own backyard as well, which is what I would advocate, instead of going into Iraq and nation-building, we should be solving problems on the homefront. However, our administration seems to disagree. We should be spending our money on improving education, health care, and being rid of poverty. Instead we've got the disasters that are No Child Left Behind and Bush's Social Security plan.

SweetLisaLisa

I thank you guys for your responses but we'll all have to agree to disagree. If we were all leaders we'd have our different ways of dealing with things. We'll just have to respect that.

GhostWriter

I see where you all are coming from but which would you rather have happen : bases gone from the U.S. or bases gone from someplace else in the world(and not just any one place in the world so don't get started) because I believe that's what homeboy wanted to know.

UnsilentMajorty

In a perfect world... Niether.

However, even in a not-so-perfect world with better government management and proper priorities, this could be more of a reality than what we have now.

This is why I said look at who is currently in charge and blame them -- if pointing blame means anything; I know it doesn't stop a base from closing, or make benefits any closer or more readily available -- And also blame those who elect these people who, for all intense purposes, are selfish in the sense they didn't think about the reprecussions of electing these type of leaders because all they were concerned about during the election was the "big-bad terrorists" and another 9/11.

Lexis

I believe that the government should close bases that are not performing or not vital to their operations. It shouldn't matter where that base is - the main considerations is its function as a military base.