Occupied Territories

[redstar2000]

Iraq and the Gulf - currently 211,028 troops
Germany - Currently 75,603 troops
South Korea - Currently 40,258 troops
Japan - Currently 40,045 troops
Afghanistan - Currently 17,900 troops
Italy - Currently 13,354 troops
UK - Currently 11,801 troops
Qatar - Currently 3,432
Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops
Iceland - Currently 1,754 troops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3568548.stm


The sun never sets on the American Empire.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Louis Pio]

They also have some on Greenland at the big Thule Airbase. Dunno how many though, what I do know is that they messed up the eco system there and later refused to take their responsibility and clean it up.

[Guerrilla22]

They still have troops in kosovo, and Macedonia also and let's not forget all the special ops in Colombia either.

[Solo]

Lets not forget to mention occupied mexico the land of texas and to the west.

[Y2A]

"Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops"

Indeed, NATO should have let Milo have his way.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why Iceland?
There's a bit of an excuse that Americans use for all of the other countries mentioned, like the fact that they were fascists in the past. Or that they are 'terrorists'. But Iceland?? :unsure:
What the fuck do they want to intimidate Icelanders for?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Iceland is the world leader in renewable energy.

[redstar2000]

As I recall reading, Iceland was unilaterally occupied by the United States (in 1942?) to "protect them from the Germans"...and the Americans just never left.

They are not "popular" in Iceland...many businesses there close during periods when Americans enter Reykjavik (the only city) for "a night of fun". But presumably they've been able to bribe successive Icelandic governments to "request" their continued presence.

Once arrived, it is very difficult to dislodge American troops...the Philippines managed to do it but not for long -- American troops are again present (in small numbers).

The BBC just listed the major occupations, by the way, and possibly not even all of those. I noticed the absence of the American naval bases in Guantanamo and Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) and I believe there are substantial numbers of American troops in Colombia and Egypt.

As was the case with Rome, I think it safe to say that the United States is now permanently "at war" someplace...or many places.

Empires are relatively easy to acquire...but extraordinarily difficult to maintain.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[refuse_resist]

let's not forget all the special ops in Colombia either.

True. And Central American countries, and they're scattered all over Latin America.

[__ca va?]

I have a list from 1998. It's not new, but it shows more countries the US has soldiers in.

Germany 60053
Japan 41257
Korea 35663
Italy 11677
UK 11379
Bosnia and Herzegovina 8170
Egypt 5846
Panama 5400
Hungary 4220
Spain 3575
Turkey 2864
Iceland 1960
Saudi-Arabia 1722
Belgium 1679
Kuwait 1640
Cuba (Guantanamo) 1527
Portugal 1066
Crotia 866
Bahrain 748
Diego García 705
Netherlands 703
Macedonia 518
Greece 498
Honduras 427
Australia 333
Haiti 239

This list was taken from Emmanuel Todd's Apres l'Empire (After the Empire)

And we all know that this is not the full list because there are troops in Iraq and in Kosovo, and there will be troops in the new NATO member states.

In occupying Iceland factor is that nuclear missles can be launched easily on Central Russia from there!

[Danton]

At the last count U$ has miliitary presence in 132 out of 190 UN member states.
Like Rome they are adept at practicing both hard and soft imperialism. Starbucks, Coca-cola, Mcdonalds and fucking Disney doing as much to perpetuate their hegemony as the smart bombs and dumb troops do to secure it.

But a good empire needs colonies - unless you consider that they inflict some sort of proxy rule in nations like the new Iraq, they lack this. The Romans ruled by remote control through friendly allies in every corner of the world. Also the Roman people adored their status unabashed - most Americans would deny the Emipirical nature of their country preffering to see themselves as somekind of world-wide security force, dispensing gods justice throughout the heathen lands...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:05 AM
Lets not forget to mention occupied mexico the land of texas and to the west.
LOL, please...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Out of all of those, only Iraq and Afgahnistan are actual "occupations", and legitimate ones at that. Just ask local Afghan women how they feel about being allowed to remove their burkhas, smile, listen to music, and actually get an education or job.

Military bases that exist with permission of host governments are not occupations. I can't believe the spin you guys are attempting. At least give a little effort next time.

"Germany, UK, Iceland"... geez, I can't believe that you really tried to pull this claim off.

You guys are really stretching nowadays.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:05 AM
Lets not forget to mention occupied mexico the land of texas and to the west.
Let me guess, you're one of those "Barrio Warrior" imbeciles.

You're almost worse than the commies, and definitely more stupid.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:56 AM
At the last count U$ has miliitary presence in 132 out of 190 UN member states.

But a good empire needs colonies - unless you consider that they inflict some sort of proxy rule in nations like the new Iraq, they lack this. The Romans ruled by remote control through friendly allies in every corner of the world. Also the Roman people adored their status unabashed - most Americans would deny the Emipirical nature of their country preffering to see themselves as somekind of world-wide security force, dispensing gods justice throughout the heathen lands...

Like Rome they are adept at practicing both hard and soft imperialism. Starbucks, Coca-cola, Mcdonalds and fucking Disney doing as much to perpetuate their hegemony as the smart bombs and dumb troops do to secure it.

Ahh, yes, the evial, maniacal Disney, a malicious vehicle of the imperial tyrants.


dumb troops

I don't know what you mean by this, but your own ignorance is exposed by stating it

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Out of all of those, only Iraq and Afghanistan are actual "occupations", and legitimate ones at that. Just ask local Afghan women how they feel about being allowed to remove their burkhas, smile, listen to music, and actually get an education or job.

Bullshit!
I highly doubt America is providing public education for the Afghanis, and now that all their money's being drained into corporate America's coffers, I doubt even more that most Afghanis will even be able to afford an education.

And there's nothing liberating about replacing a government with a foreign military regime. Most Afghani women that are educate I'm sure highly resent America's presence there.


Military bases that exist with permission of host governments are not occupations. I can't believe the spin you guys are attempting. At least give a little effort next time.

I guess they could just easily reject your military, couldn't they?
Most of those countries harbor American terrorists because they lost WWII and were invaded. The invasion never actually ended, even until today. I really doubt that keeping thousands of troops in Germany is necessary in preventing a future Hitler. Maybe they should try putting those troops in America where a future Hitler is much more likely to be in power... wait! :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:40 PM

I highly doubt America is providing public education for the Afghanis, and now that all their money's being drained into corporate America's coffers, I doubt even more that most Afghanis will even be able to afford an education.

And there's nothing liberating about replacing a government with a foreign military regime. Most Afghani women that are educate I'm sure highly resent America's presence there.



I guess they could just easily reject your military, couldn't they?
Most of those countries harbor American terrorists because they lost WWII and were invaded. The invasion never actually ended, even until today. I really doubt that keeping thousands of troops in Germany is necessary in preventing a future Hitler. Maybe they should try putting those troops in America where a future Hitler is much more likely to be in power... wait! :lol:

I highly doubt America is providing public education for the Afghanis,

never claimed such, I'm just saying that they are free to do it. Under the taliban, they couldn't work, go to school, or even show their face regardless of money.


Afghani women that are educate I'm sure highly resent America's presence there.

Compared to the taliban? I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that most don't


I guess they could just easily reject your military, couldn't they?

If an ally really wanted us out, we'd leave.


Most of those countries harbor American terrorists because they lost WWII and were invaded. The invasion never actually ended, even until today. I really doubt that keeping thousands of troops in Germany is necessary in preventing a future Hitler.

Please, these nations enjoy the economic benefit and protection of a US military base. Besides, it wasn't a future hitler we were there for, after WWII, we were in europe to check the USSR. Now,, we are there as a staging ground for middle-east operations, and are currently realigning deployments anyway.


Maybe they should try putting those troops in America where a future Hitler is much more likely to be in power... wait! :lol:

Wow, I've never heard this totally ignorant and wholely inaccurate comparison between Bush and Hitler before. What a surprise. Even you vcommies should be better than this.


And iraq is "another vietnam" right? Why don't you submit something besides the same rehashed and inane rhetoric?

[fernando]

Just ask local Afghan women how they feel about being allowed to remove their burkhas, smile, listen to music, and actually get an education or job.

Yah while the women in Pakistan still get burnt...but hey at least their dictator is such a nice guy ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

off the issue

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

never claimed such, I'm just saying that they are free to do it. Under the taliban, they couldn't work, go to school, or even show their face regardless of money.

That's no excuse for an invasion. If America cared about women's rights enough to invade a country for it, they'd also be invading Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Two countries where women are brutally oppressed. And not only are women oppressed in these countries, but they're also both absolute monarchies. But as long as they continue to pump oil obediently, they're okay, right?

What interests does the American government have in upholding human rights in Afghanistan? What about China? What about North Korea? Could it be that you're too afraid to do that? You can only fight for human rights in defenseless countries, is that it?

That would kind of endanger the American people, wouldn't it?

What does that suggest?

The fact that these country’s whose human rights are 'protected' by the US don't actually appreciate you, right? Because if they did, then you wouldn't be afraid to do it to countries with nuclear arms, would you?

If the US really cared, they could easily fund a progressive party or militia fighting for civil liberties in Afghanistan, couldn't they?

Besides, US foreign military actions should be opposed simply because of the danger posed to the international workers' struggle by a yet stronger American military influence in the world.


Wow, I've never heard this totally ignorant and wholely inaccurate comparison between Bush and Hitler before. What a surprise. Even you vcommies should be better than this.

I don't seriously think that Bush is an equivalent of Hitler, but I certainly see how that is an easily defensible point of view. I thought it was pretty funny, personally.


And iraq is "another vietnam" right? Why don't you submit something besides the same rehashed and inane rhetoric?

It's pretty similar.

And why don't you submit something besides the same rehashed and inane rhetoric?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 05:20 PM
off the issue
No it's not.
Why doesn't the US invade Pakistan?

If you'd like I can make a new thread about that so it woudn't be "off topic", but I think it would be pretty trivial to do so.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:20 AM
"Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops"

Indeed, NATO should have let Milo have his way.
Nato did not impede Milosevic in any way, shape or form. They bolstered his support in his country and merely speeded up his "ethnic cleansing". Oh and they killed some Serbs aswell, but shit happens I suppose.

[Capitalist Imperial]

And they caught him and put him on trial for war crimes.

[YKTMX]

Yes, and that's going just swimmingly isn't it?

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 10:20 PM
off the issue
It's hypocrite, the US can brag up about the great things they have done for Afganistan while in the same time support other countries who do exactly the same the regime they fought against did


And they caught him and put him on trial for war crimes.
Hmmm...if only he was on the US' side, things would have been so much better for him huh ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:44 PM
Yes, and that's going just swimmingly isn't it?
Its not really going bad.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 11:04 PM
Its not really going bad.
Who you trying to convince, me or you? The fact is that the ICC is such a biased, hypocritical institution that anything it does is meritless.

[The New Yorker]

Whats it matter where our troops are? when your the most powerful country in the modern world the smaller countrys who are your allies may want troops in there town to protect their intrest and yours.

Also some of the areas you listed such as Germany. Are needed for quick deployment of usa troops through out the world. Every area is coverd for optimum deployment. Whats so wrong with that? Allows the most powerful country in the world to protect its intrest and the intrest of its allies.

Dont try to feed my some communist yargen againts where we deploy are troops means nothing to me and only appears to be correct well because were on a communist site!

[Danton]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 06:04 PM



I don't know what you mean by this, but your own ignorance is exposed by stating it
What I mean is that the bombs these days are more thinking, more sophisticated, more cultured than the redneck sonofa***** billy boy "wot's G12 do Tommy?" Iraqi -abusing, goofy, meatheaded shitsacks that's firin 'em, guhhuhh...

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 19 2004, 04:22 PM
Dont try to feed my some communist yargen againts where we deploy are troops means nothing to me and only appears to be correct well because were on a communist site!
I didn't quite catch the meaning of that. Could you please rephrase it so it makes sense?

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:06 AM
I didn't quite catch the meaning of that. Could you please rephrase it so it makes sense?
What The New Yorker is trying to say is that everyone who doesnt obey the US is an evil communist

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:01 AM
What I mean is that the bombs these days are more thinking, more sophisticated, more cultured than the redneck sonofa***** billy boy "wot's G12 do Tommy?" Iraqi -abusing, goofy, meatheaded shitsacks that's firin 'em, guhhuhh...
Dollars-to-Donuts says that you wouldn't be talking that mess to a US Marine's face.

Nice ignorant stereotype though.

[fernando]

US marine...I'd spit in his face and if does something to me...well my cousins have a special dislike for Americans...especially military :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 04:37 PM
US marine...I'd spit in his face and if does something to me...well my cousins have a special dislike for Americans...especially military :lol:
Do you think US marines would be afraid of your punk-ass cousins?

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 04:56 PM
Do you think US marines would be afraid of your punk-ass cousins?
Yes especially since my two cousins are pretty big and like to tear apart people who they dont like :lol:

One of them used to be in the Russian army, he has that bit of the sadistic Russian maffia cliche in him, but ok I dont know if I would pick a fight with an US marine, depends what he has to say.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:38 PM
Yes especially since my two cousins are pretty big and like to tear apart people who they dont like :lol:

One of them used to be in the Russian army, he has that bit of the sadistic Russian maffia cliche in him, but ok I dont know if I would pick a fight with an US marine, depends what he has to say.
Well.maybe your cousins are big and tough, but so are many Americans, and we don't like to back down from challenges!!!

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 05:51 PM
Well.maybe your cousins are big and tough, but so are many Americans, and we don't like to back down from challenges!!!
I know that...maybe we would have to show what they did to the last marine that stood in their way :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 06:37 PM
I know that...maybe we would have to show what they did to the last marine that stood in their way :lol:
Oh, please, LOL

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 06:42 PM
Oh, please, LOL
It was a funny sight...

But ok...I think we are kinda getting off topic here, it started about "the US occupying land" and now its about how my cousins beat people up :P

[Capitalist Imperial]

It is off topic, but bet your cousins are just angry because their nation was defeated by the US years ago!

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 06:49 PM
It is off topic, but bet your cousins are just angry because their nation was defeated by the US years ago!
Nah...I dont think so, I think they got annoyed by an American once or something, I should ask them why they are intense when I see them again :P

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Fernando, you're being a bit of a douche-bag. Nobody cares how tough your cousins are. That kind of crap is what I used to hear from little sissies when I was in elementary school. Your not intimidating anyone by flaunting your cousin's strength.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I don't even think it happened, or if it did it was like 3 on 1 or something.

[Solo]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 06:01 PM
Let me guess, you're one of those "Barrio Warrior" imbeciles.

You're almost worse than the commies, and definitely more stupid.
ACTUALLY A LATIN KING!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE MUCH TO SAY, BUT FACE 2 FACE THERE WOULD BE NO NAME CALLING!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:25 AM
ACTUALLY A LATIN KING!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE MUCH TO SAY, BUT FACE 2 FACE THERE WOULD BE NO NAME CALLING!
I'm not one to try to get tough on an internet chatboard, but, I can tell you with full confidence that I'm not going to back down from what I believe in no matter what the situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people like me", but you don't really know me at all. And I've seen the Latin Kings. All you guys in your yellow jackets have to hang your hat on is the gang mentality.

One-on-One you guys can't always hang so tough.

[fernando]

One on One with marines...I still have to see that :lol:

[Danton]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2004, 04:33 PM
Dollars-to-Donuts says that you wouldn't be talking that mess to a US Marine's face.

Nice ignorant stereotype though.
Absolutley not! I know what kind of depraved, sadistic sexual punishment they dish out... Your army is full to brimming with stupid fucking sick idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Deal with it.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:25 AM
ACTUALLY A LATIN KING!

PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE MUCH TO SAY, BUT FACE 2 FACE THERE WOULD BE NO NAME CALLING!
Amor de Rey.

Just fucking around, but you shouldn't pretend to be something your not kid.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

At the last count U$ has miliitary presence in 132 out of 190 UN member states.
Like Rome they are adept at practicing both hard and soft imperialism. Starbucks, Coca-cola, Mcdonalds and fucking Disney doing as much to perpetuate their hegemony as the smart bombs and dumb troops do to secure it.

In 95% of those 132 countries with a "US Military Presence," that presence consists of a handful of Marines guarding the US Embassy. Somehow you've twisted the notion of keeping our State Department employees safe into a vast, imperialistic enterprise.

If the government of South Korea, Japan, Iceland, Germany, Britain, Turkey etc. asked us to remove our troops, we'd do it in a New York minute. Case in point: Subic Bay, the Phillipines.

And, yes, I believe that will be true of Iraq as well when a stable, democratically-elected government is in place. Obviously you disagree with that belief, but only time will tell who is right. You state your belief as though it were a matter of indisputable fact, with your usual condescending attitude.

As for the so-called "cultural imperialism," I'm not aware that Disney, Coca Cola or MacDonalds has armed military forces coercing people to consume their products at gunpoint. The term "cultural imperialism" is laughable...it is demeaning to non-Americans, implying that they are not capable of choosing wisely on their own, but rather are somehow hypnotized by our Hollwood glitz and need to be saved from themselves.

If people in another country freely choose to watch a movie made and Hollywood instead of (or in addition to) one produced in their own country, why do you view that as a threat? How is that imperialism? Of if they freely choose to eat a burger at MacDonalds once in a while instead of the food typical of their own culture, why do you on the left feel so threatened by that?

[RevolucioN NoW]

In 95% of those 132 countries with a "US Military Presence," that presence consists of a handful of Marines guarding the US Embassy. Somehow you've twisted the notion of keeping our State Department employees safe into a vast, imperialistic enterprise.

Is it not possible to hire private security contractors from the country on which the embassy resides to do this job?

Or are those "foriegners" not good enough to gaurd the red white and blue?


If the government of South Korea, Japan, Iceland, Germany, Britain, Turkey etc. asked us to remove our troops, we'd do it in a New York minute. Case in point: Subic Bay, the Phillipines.

I thought that Subic Bay reference was a little dubious, proves I was right


The 12-15 June 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo volcano, located 100 kilometers northwest of Manila in the Philippines, was the largest eruption in the past five decades and led to the largest recorded evacuation of people due to a volcanic threat. US forces left the Philippines after Mount Pinatubo erupted, forcing American service members and families to flee and smothering Subic Bay and Clark Air Base under tons of volcanic ash and debris.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac...y/subic_bay.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/subic_bay.htm)

Seems the US had little choice but to leave the Phillipines, or its base would be smothered by volcanic ash and debris.

If thats all that nations such as South Korea and Germany have to do to force the US out, then why are we worrying :D


And, yes, I believe that will be true of Iraq as well when a stable, democratically-elected government is in place. Obviously you disagree with that belief, but only time will tell who is right. You state your belief as though it were a matter of indisputable fact, with your usual condescending attitude.

A "democratically elected" puppet is still a puppet.

The new Iraqi government knows, as its "democratic" successors will quickly learn, that without US military support, the resistance will win in a matter of months.


As for the so-called "cultural imperialism," I'm not aware that Disney, Coca Cola or MacDonalds has armed military forces coercing people to consume their products at gunpoint.

As much as I hate argueing by definitions,

im·pe·ri·al·ism n.


The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Imperialism

Note the bold, these corporations do not need to use "armed military forces" in order to secure their hegemony.

Will you cappies ever learn?

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:15 AM
Why Iceland?
There's a bit of an excuse that Americans use for all of the other countries mentioned, like the fact that they were fascists in the past. Or that they are 'terrorists'. But Iceland?? :unsure:
What the fuck do they want to intimidate Icelanders for?
the purpose of them being there is not to intimidate its to keep US soldiers in an area where they can quickly to react to any situation in the world.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 27 2004, 05:58 AM
the purpose of them being there is not to intimidate its to keep US soldiers in an area where they can quickly to react to any situation in the world.
By establishing a monopoly of power.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 05:56 PM
Just ask local Afghan women how they feel about being allowed to remove their burkhas, smile, listen to music, and actually get an education or job.
What an idiot! These are the very same rights for women the Soviets fought for when in Afghanistan against the pro-US woman hating Mujahideen. The US did everything possible to not have such a system in Afghanistan. And when their sweet little darlings murdered 3,000 Americans they finally play the feminist card to show off to the world. Your stupidity is really unbelievable!