My theory and would it work?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I've bounced these ideas off of a few friends and in truth didn't get much back either way, so I'm tossing it out for yawl, please do think about it and reply, I believe in it but I have limited knowledge as to the impact it would have on the US and World.

    I believe that America could only benefit from doing the following.

    Close down the 142 military bases we have scattered around the world, this would save billions, We have been the guardians of the free world way too long, we have spent our future providing for the safty of the world, is it our job? Japan and Germany are just two that come to mind, they have become world super powers because America provided for their defense, we spent trillions of dollars doing so while they were able to live the good life and become world players due to not having to spend their money providing for their own defense. And in fact most of the countries where we have our military seem to hate us... so...close the bases.

    Bring all our troops home, we have no need to have our troops scattered across the world, that alone would return billions of dollars to the US by the fact of our people being here spending their money in this country, plus, this is the country they should be protecting, let the rest of the world spend their money filling the gap.

    Stop all foreign aid, why should we send billions of dollars in aid ( mostly military hardware) to countries that hate us? Egypt is the # 2 recipient of US Aid, of course Israel being first. But our money goes all over the world in attempts to buy good favor . I say stop it except in something cases which would be food not bullets, but not if it's going to be grabbed up by a dictator or warlord .

    I believe our national security would be well served by the purchase ( at very fair prices) of a strip of land 50 miles deep running from the gulf of Mexico to the Pacific , it could be divided into training areas and bases for all those troops coming home. make the live fire training areas stop short of the border by a few miles, which would be patrolled by our troops. this would have more chance of stopping drug runners and others from invading the US.

    I believe our National boundary's should extend beyond the 3 mile limit to something like 200 miles, which should be patrolled by our Navy and Coast Guard, with power to stop and search any ships or boats entering the area and do it. this should stop a lot of the drug and other traffic.

    Not last and for sure not least, kick the UN out of the country, and stop US participation in the UN, this will save many billions of dollars and clean the air a great deal...

    There are a lot of places to save even more money, I am a former US Marine but being only a lowly grunt really don't know if I have the knowledge to say this but do we really need a bunch of new trillion dollar jet fighters and bombers? The latest ones that are already far into over runs?In this age of smart missiles and fast small powerful ships and subs do we really need these aircraft? Hell I remember the old prop driven planes used in Viet Nam war, I think they were Sky Raiders? AD's and AD 50's ?( Help me here you old bird men) those damn planes could carry enough fire and forget missiles to wipe out a fleet full of incoming aircraft or ships... sometimes star war's ideas can be trumped by common sense.

    Well this is too long, but you see my thoughts, would/could this or something like it work? would we be better off as a nation if we did these things? mind our own business? maybe if we weren't sticking our noses into the rest of the worlds business we could rebuild our own nation and create jobs here.

    True or not, I did hear that the tracks for our Tanks were made in another country...

    Comment or not, it's just a thought and maybe not even a good one, but God knows we need to do something!
     
  2. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    That theory has been boucing around for a while now (even here in Canada). The amount of funds that Canada spends on outside-countries is insane (people, equipment, food, etc). If we were to pull all our troops out (Afganistan) of other countries, we would save lives, equipment and money. Canadians have sent a few hundred million down to Haiti (between people, equipment, food and coin) for humanitarian purposes - but - what gain will there be for Canadians as a whole for all that?

    I realize that those who have should share with those who don't have as much, but, where does that line need to be drawn? Sometimes it makes me wonder if I should even bother working for a living and just rely on government handouts like everyone else.
     

  3. Expeditioner

    Expeditioner Well-Known Member

    482
    0
    Definitely need to rethink the global presence of our military; however, I do not think a total withdrawl from foreign bases is prudent. To do so would only increase the risk of attack from our enemies.

    I do agree that we need to stop funding the UN and kick them out of the country. It is noble idea that has failed miserably.
     
  4. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    All of them? Probably not. Whether we like it or not we are dependent on foreign oil and need to protect the flow of that oil. But I do agree, we have been the worlds police force long enough.

    Goes along with closing bases

    Absolutely!! This makes me sick. See this post.
    http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f46/aid-foreign-countries-2257/

    May be going a little too far. I would assume there are a lot of people living in a 50 mile wide strip the length of Mexico. However, having a military presence along that border would go a long way to curtailing illegal entry and drug running.

    I could be wrong but I believe the US already does claim the waters 200 miles out from both coasts. (don't feel like looking it up right now)

    Amen to that!!
     
  5. Turtle

    Turtle Well-Known Member

    2,201
    6
    I'm with you on the idea of a military presence on the Mexico-US border. Sounds good to me.

    As for the idea of base closures . . . I don't think that's a good idea, at least not on a large scale. We could probably consolidate some of them, but it's probably a good idea to maintain some presence world-wide.

    Regarding the Navy and Coast Guard increasing their patrol radius . . . it would actually make a lot more sense to simply increase the size of the Coast Guard, or shift assets from the Navy to the Coast Guard. Ever since the CG was shifted to the Dept of Homeland Security, they act as a law enforcement entity, instead of a military presence. Hence, if the Navy were to fire upon another nation's ships, it would be an act of war; if the CG were to do so, it is seen as an act of law enforcement. I'm sure that a bunch of squids would bristle at being transferred to the Coast Guard, but the Coast Guard is America's oldest sea-faring military service. :D
     
  6. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    I think it might work, it's just that nobody in Washington would listen.
     
  7. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16

    Actually as I recall the Coast Guard was always attached to the Dept of the Treasury not defense . I could be wrong but don't think so..

    As for Bases, I really don't see what good they might do, IF anybody Russia for example wished to they could roll right over them. I don't know if it would hurt or not I just know we need to stop being the worlds police force,
     
  8. jungatheart

    jungatheart Beginner's Mind

    230
    1
    Since the real enemies of our country are in Washington, D.C., your idea might work.
     
  9. Expeditioner

    Expeditioner Well-Known Member

    482
    0
    It has always been my understanding that the USCG is part of the DOT. It falls under the DOD when war has been declared by Congress or when serving in combat operations.
     
  10. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I learned a lot I didn't know!! GO COASTIES!!

    History
    Main article: History of the United States Coast Guard
    Marines holding a sign thanking the U.S. Coast Guard after the battle of Guam.

    The roots of the Coast Guard lie in the United States Revenue Cutter Service established by Alexander Hamilton under the Department of the Treasury on 4 August 1790. The first Coast Guard station was in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Until the re-establishment of the United States Navy in 1798, the Revenue Cutter Service was the only naval force of the early United States. It was established to collect taxes from a brand new nation of patriot smugglers. When the officers were out at sea, they were told to crack down on piracy; while they were at it, they might as well rescue anyone in distress.[12]

    "First Fleet" is a term occasionally used as an informal reference to the U.S. Coast Guard, although there is no indication that the United States has ever officially used this designation with reference either to the Coast Guard or any element of the U.S. Navy. The informal appellation honors the fact that between 1790 and 1798, there was no United States Navy and the cutters which were the predecessor of the U.S. Coast Guard were the only warships protecting the coast, trade, and maritime interests of the new republic.[13]

    The modern Coast Guard can be said to date to 1915, when the Revenue Cutter Service merged with the United States Life-Saving Service and Congress formalized the existence of the new organization. In 1939, the U.S. Lighthouse Service was brought under its purview. In 1942, the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation was transferred to the Coast Guard. In 1967, the Coast Guard moved from the Department of the Treasury to the newly formed Department of Transportation, an arrangement that lasted until it was placed under the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 as part of legislation designed to more efficiently protect American interests following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

    In times of war, the Coast Guard or individual components of it can operate as a service of the Department of the Navy. This arrangement has a broad historical basis, as the Guard has been involved in wars as diverse as the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the American Civil War, in which the cutter Harriet Lane fired the first naval shots attempting to relieve besieged Fort Sumter. The last time the Coast Guard operated as a whole under the Navy was in World War II. More often, military and combat units within the Coast Guard will operate under Navy or Joint operational control while other Coast Guard units will remain under the Department of Homeland Security.
     
  11. svenhammermon

    svenhammermon Member

    13
    0
    true but.....?

    We could do all that and more anytime the powers that be allowed it. After bringing home the troops, staffers and peripherals from all those bases, we'd need to set ourselves up for independence once again. Energy, technology, etc. Hell, at work half the steel we get now is either from China or Russia! Get this, the name of the russian steel company is Red Oktober Steel Works! Truth! This steel is crap too. The machinists all complain about it. We have to buy it because it's the only steel we can get. No one in America makes it or makes enough of it to supply demands. Try this out....all those huge transformers you see at sub stations and powers plants all over America....no one in America makes them. We can and often DO feed the world. Let's pull our gracious arms back in and start taking care of ourselves and we'll see how long some of these belligerent countries like Iran last! I think they'd collapse from hunger before we had to fire a shot. Stop the buying of their opium and their oil and see what happens. China can't feed them....they're starving themselves.
     
  12. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    This is a little more complex than I realized.

    THE TERRITORIAL SEA (0 to 12 Nautical Miles)
    Under international law, every coastal nation has sovereignty over the air space, water column, seabed, and subsoil of its territorial sea, subject to certain rights of passage for foreign vessels and, in more limited
    circumstances, foreign aircraft.
    Prior to 1988, the United States claimed a territorial sea out to 3 miles. In that year, President Reagan proclaimed a 12-mile territorial sea for the United States, consistent with provisions in the LOS Convention.
    The proclamation extended the territorial sea only for purposes of international law, explicitly stating that there was no intention to alter domestic law.

    THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE (12 to 24 Nautical Miles)
    International law recognizes a contiguous zone outside the territorial sea of each coastal nation. Within its contiguous zone, a nation can assert limited authority, primarily related to customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws. In 1999, President Clinton proclaimed a U.S. contiguous zone from 12 to 24 miles offshore enhancing the U.S. Coast Guard’s authority to take enforcement actions against foreign flag vessels throughout this larger area.

    THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (12 to 200 Nautical Miles)
    The LOS Convention allows each coastal nation to establish an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) adjacent to its territorial sea, extending a maximum of 200 miles seaward from the baseline. Within its EEZ, the coastal nation has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing living and nonliving resources, whether found in ocean waters, the seabed, or subsoil. It also has jurisdiction over artificial islands or other structures with economic purposes.
     
  13. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    Sven-not true. For a 2 year period before I got the job I have now, I worked at Pennsylvania Transformer in Canonsburg, PA. We made (and they still do make) those big transformers. The company has been in business in one form or another since the '20's and is currently owned by a man of foreign descent. They are made on the cheap now, where they used to be the best in the world, according to those who have made a career out of the place. There were 3000 people there on 3 shifts in the 60's; now there are 300, with 2 departments working swing shifts. The biggest transformer I saw (we made 2 of them while I was there) took both of the final assembly department's 250 ton overhead cranes to pick up and move. Most of them were much smaller, but even the little ones were like 4x8x8 outside dimensions. I have no knowledge of the electrical capabilities of the transformers, as I was a shot blaster in the tank shop after I bid out of the labor pool.

    To the other posters-I like the idea of military presence along the Mexican border. Let the soldiers practice with their night vision stuff by hunting illegals. And I do think we need bases overseas and to some extent do need to maintain a world presence. Maybe not as big as we have now, but if we pull out who's going to move in? China?
     
  14. svenhammermon

    svenhammermon Member

    13
    0
    Interesting....I was told that no one in the U.S. made them anymore. Thanks for the correction. Is that the only company that you know of or are there others that make the transformers? They're retro-fitting the sub stations all around here and part of the process is EMP arrestors. I have a meeting this week with a power company official....I'll see if I can't "weedle" a little more info out of him.
     
  15. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    They (a couple of foreign descent) own that company and a similar one somewhere in North Carloina. As of when I quit for a better gig, that was the case. That's going back 3 years. I'd heard that the NC plant makes smaller units but I don't know for sure. Pennsylvania Transformer is the name of the company. I haven't been on their website for years but it's actually pretty well done. Not sure of the site name/address/whatever you call it and I'm too tired to google it right now. :) I honestly liked working there;I only left for the job I have now because it's closer and I make a little better money now.
     
  16. svenhammermon

    svenhammermon Member

    13
    0
    Thanks again, Jason. Just goes to show ya....never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see..lol. I was under the impression that the U.S. no longer had anyone making the big transformers. It's certainly good that there is someone. In any case, we could be doing a lot more for ourselves and farming a lot less of our work overseas. I understand cost is a major factor in moving a factory or process to another country...but how much will it cost us if we can't do business with any other country? Today's bottom line seems to be more important than tomorrow's security. Thanks again, Jason.
     
  17. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    No problem. Glad I could help. I wish that there were more manufacturing left in this country. Where I live, South of Pittsburgh, used to be all farms and factories. The factories were pollution free for alls, with no vegetation growing around the mills at all for years. Now the steel mills are all gone but a couple, but the environment is healing. In fact, the transformer plant we've been talking about has to monitor the creek in front of the plant for PCB infiltration from past mismanagement of the PCB laden oil they used to use in the transformers.

    It seems to me that if the mills were still here by now the rules would be such that the environmental impact of the mills would be much less than it was in the past and people would still have jobs. This is a derpessed area because of all the jobs heading overseas. I honestly believe that the greed of the unions was one of the driving factors in the decision to shut the plants down. Not the only factor, but one of the big ones.

    As far as the farms, we milked a small dairy herd on this farm from 1928 to 2000. I wish we were still doing it, but we were a small operation and basically noone would come pick up our milk any more. And with the prices of the milk, it was less and less cost effective to keep going every year anyhow. The way our barn was set up we could not expand it. We'd need to build a whole new facility, which would take decades to pay for itself. Not worth it. So now we work off the farm and do what we can hee with beef and crops, just like most other farms around here.
     
  18. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    Do you milk a cow for your own personal use?
     
  19. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    is it really true that countries we have bases in hate us? or even dislike us? from all the stories from my family members stationed all over the globe, quite a few navy relations that have only good stories to tell about coming into ports across the globe

    i mean does it really seem prudent to go all isolationism just as the world is starting to wake up to the advances technology provides (cheap vaccines, cheap mobile phones, credit cards that have 90% payback rates)

    I mean sure we have a huge stake in these countries coming up but making them self sufficient is beneficial to us in the world market
     
  20. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16

    Kogneto, there is a world of difference in a US navy Ship making a port of call and an Army base for instance, the ships make port, sailors with a pocket full of money hit the beach and spend like crazy, in a few days they are gone..

    A Military base is always there and as a rule the only people happy to see them are the bar owners and the hookers , most civilians don't see that much income off of the troops and consider them to be nothing but a problem.

    Of course I'm speaking from my time in other countries loooong ago, but it's seems the "Yankee go Home" thing is worse today and it was bad then..

    Hell South Viet's hated Americans, they wanted our money but not us.

    And ... during WW2 the British had a saying.. The only problem with the Yanks is...They are over paid, over sexed and over here! and this from the folks we were helping the most !! after the war and after Germany was back on her feet the public just wanted to see us gone, not our money, just the troops, same with Japan.

    I know there are some countries where an American base makes a lot of sense, but out of the 240+ bases scattered over the world I'll bet 90 % could be closed...

    Maybe I'm an isolationist, I just feel that America needs to take a breather from being the worlds police force and from pumping our non existing treasure into countries who are at best ungrateful..

    We need to bring back the manufacturing base we once had, create jobs here and remove the illegals , the only reason the Dimos are pushing for immigration reform is they see the 13 + mil as future Dimo voters... well screw that !

    There is a lot wrong in America today and it ain't gonna get fixed until we clean out that nest of vipers in DC and replace them with honest people who will obey and honor the Constitution as it was writen...

    Sorry!!! :soapboxrant: