You're viewing a single thread.
Iirc the way these bases work is with the agreement from the host country.
Tell that to Cuba.
More like an "agreement"
Having a US military base (that wasn't forcibly installed by the US military) in your country is usually great for a country's security at a fantasic price. Especially if you're a country that's not likely to have an adversarial relationship with the US.
The US isn't likely going to invade or go to war with Romania anytime soon, so having US military thousands of US troops, aircraft, and the world's most advanced missile defense systems placed there offers great security that they're paying for just by being located in a strategically useful position.
The price is that the US might overthrow your government if they don't like the outcome of an election.
That was CIA interference.
It's bad, but it doesn't require a military presence.
Yes, I'm sure the presence of Pine Ridge had nothing to do with it. The CIA never coordinates with the US military after all.
Okay, how about the US service members that keep sexually assaulting women in Japan?
You’re interrupting the circle jerk.
Iirc the way these bases work is with the agreement from the host
countrycountry's government and most definitely NOT the people of said country.FTFY.
Some countries have their people elect their government
Right, right... like the US just did?
How's that vote on healthcare coming along?
I was thinking more European countries, since the discussion was, you know, foreign countries hosting US military bases
So-called "liberal democracy" works pretty much the exact same way it does in Europe (or anywhere else) as it does in the US.
Ie, it's 95% capitalism and 5% fake democracy substitute (the ratios vary slightly but never by much). And, like "liberal democracy" everywhere, the 5% fake democracy substitute will be rapidly replaced with 5% very not-fake fascism if you threaten the 95% capitalism part in any way whatsoever.
So-called "liberal democracy" works pretty much the exact same way it does in Europe (or anywhere else) as it does in the US.
Lol no. Much of Europe ranks much higher in all sort of democracy, press freedom etc indexes. Not all liberal democracies are created equal.
I'm guessing you're having a real hard time understanding that there is absolutely NOTHING democratic about so-called "liberal democracy," eh?
Why is that? Is the new information clashing with your programming?
I mean I've voted for a candidates in municipal, health care area, parliamentary and European Parliament elections. Hell, even in church elections. I've had friends as candidates, seen stuff get through from a single person's suggestion through to reality through what I'd call democratic means and action, I've worked with different campaigns and parties and have seen change happen through that.
If that doesn't count as democratic then not sure what you consider democratic tbh because that's the stuff I think of when I think of democracy.
Is the new information clashing with your programming?
It just seems to clash with the common definition of the word, is all. If democracy isn't that sort of stuff then I wonder what it is and where you might find it, if anywhere.
Hell, even in church elections.
Okay. I'll give it to you - Finland allows it's population more democracy-like privileges than you'd find in most other countries, and it probably isn't even the only one that does that.
But tell me this... how many of the corporations Finnish people work for is democratically run?
democracy-like privileges
I mean it's not like we haven't fought for those. Can't expect someone to just give you these privileges. But more to the point, when I think of democracy it's all those things that make up the whole. Citizen participation, citizen ability to affect things, free and fair elections, freedom of the press and so on. And I don't mean those as absolute terms yes/no but rather as sliders that you'd use to gauge not if a country was straight up democratic or not but rather how democratic/how not democratic it is. And I'd say Finland is far enough into the democratic side that I'd say we do have democracy here.
But tell me this… how many of the corporations Finnish people work for is democratically run?
I mean a very significant chunk of workforce and economy works through cooperatives. And those have elections. Our biggest chain of shops is a cooperative, one of the biggest banks is also, there's energy and forestry and so on. Out of 5,5 million people over 4 million are members of a cooperative. So not sure how many that's numerically out of all corporations but when you consider the size and impact of them, it's a big portion. Of course there's the factor that we're also heavily unionized and unions have both a very strong foothold and legal status. And those have elections ofc. But it's different from cooperatives where you vote for stuff, if that's what you were asking about.
It's all just the sort of stuff I'd say made up democracy. Saying there's nothing democratic about Finland just feels weird and wrong. If we have nothing democratic, who does??
They do. However, I'm sure you can imagine an elected government acting in a way that the majority disagrees with. We're about to see it in the US (actually, we have for years if not decades). This is not just a US phenomenon, there's actual research showing that in liberal democracies, there's very little correlation between what the general public wants, and the policies instated by their elected officials. There is a strong correlation with the interests of the owning class though.
Here's a study for American politics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
There's a Danish study as well. I'm having terrible trouble finding it though. It's an important addition because the democrats not representing the interests of the working class could in theory be a consequence of the US's two party system. The same result holding in multi-party Denmark shows that this is not the case.
At any rate, the point is that just because these countries are liberal democracies doesn't mean their population wants a US military presence.
No it doesn't automatically mean people want it, but add in stuff like living next to Russia and suddenly it's very easy to understand why some actually want it.
to be fair, most of these countries allow usa bases because of the countries that explicitly dont have usa bases. see map.
they use expensive infrastructure and most countries would rather fund their own bases.
oooo cake 🎂
If the base in Okinawa is famously unpopular amongst the Okinawa locals and a political head ache for the Japanese government, I don't imagine that other bases in less allied countries are more popular.
I know even the bases in Europe are famed for being rough and a blight on towns. (but then so are most British military bases in at least England...)
Bases, plural
There are 4 US military bases in Okinawa that accounts for 22% of the land on the island. It’s no wonder they’re pissed.
It’s mostly the rape that they’re pissed about.
I'm fairly sure there's historical and cultural reasons for the Okinawa bases being disliked amongst the locals. There was like a little war thingy you may have heard of, I believe it was the second of its' series.
Anyway.
I'm from one of those countries where NATO troops and equipment get stationed. Most locals seem to be grateful, I know I am. Putin will be too scared to make any moves if there are both American AND British troops in our bases.
Eastern Europe would be the probable exception, due to the ever threat of Russian invasion.
(As for the Okinawan bases... I think all the sexual assault has something to do with it, beyond the fighting in the Second World War.)
You got down voted because some folks are either ignorant of wider geopolitics, or of certain inclination and don't want to hear the inconvenient truth.
I am originally from Philippines which hosted a major US military base. Despite the protests, the Americans did not leave until a major volcanic eruption nearby prompted them to do so in the early 90s. I am anti-imperialists as much as the next guy and the overseas American military presence is an on-the-face sign of imperialism, but the fact of the matter is that many countries literally "free ride" under American protective umbrella. It saves the country money and deter rivals. That being said, in hindsight the Americans should not have left, as China has now started claiming an entire sea region and bullying Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen. China has also literally set up a military base within 200 nautical miles of Philippine exclusive economic zone without permission, which the international court deemed to be illegal.
Many Filipinos changed their tune from "go home Yankees" to "Yankees come back! You should have stayed" because hindsight is 20/20. Right now, American soldiers are dripping back slowly to the Philippines since the Chinese military is still squatting.