許多國家沒有海外軍隊和基地。中國就是這樣的一個。
美國當然可以做同樣的事情，只與其他國家建立外交關係。
這不是一個是否可能的問題。美國是否願意，這是一個問題。
鑑於自二戰以來，世界上 82% 的騷亂/戰爭是由美國+盟友煽動的，我認為美國不會想要撤軍。
“部隊和基地”是與其他國家“外交關係”的傳統組成部分，許多富裕國家都有。外交政策就那樣複雜，而且一直如此。
美國在 1783 年至 1812 年期間討論了擁有最少陸軍和海軍的外交政策。它發現，在 19 世紀的世界中，一個沒有軍事力量的國家無法保衛自己的公民和貿易船隻，也可能不會受到世界主要大國的重視。在 1815 年至 1890 年期間，它繼續努力將和平時期的海軍開支保持在最低水平，並在 1948 年之前將其和平時期的軍隊保持在小規模和無威脅的水平，直到情況被迫改變。
隨著 19 世紀後期蒸汽技術和遠程海軍大砲的出現，在西方外交政策圈子中顯而易見的是，任何擁有龐大海軍的國家在發生涉及擁有如此龐大海軍的外國列強的重大國際危機時將束手無策。海軍。美國於 1890 年開始建立蒸汽和鋼鐵海軍。該國的一個民族主義派別很快呼籲美國為其海外艦隊確保加煤站。這是有爭議的，導致反帝國主義、反干涉主義和孤立主義政治成為 1890 年代至今國家政治的一個因素。
美國海外擴張的高峰期是 1898 年，當時美國獲得了夏威夷、波多黎各和菲律賓。對菲律賓獨立運動的殘酷鎮壓使帝國主義名譽掃地。西奧多·羅斯福政府保留了其海外海軍基地，但同意讓菲律賓成為一個自治聯邦，而不是將其視為殖民地。它還承諾最終獨立，基於這樣的假設，即在 20 世紀的某個時候，歐洲帝國主義將消亡，菲律賓可以完全獨立，而不會受到任何尋求新帝國領土的大國的威脅。
1914年和1939年，歐洲列強發動了兩次世界大戰，導致歐洲滿目瘡痍，數千萬人喪生。日本是一個正在崛起的亞洲強國，尋求與歐洲帝國競爭，它在亞洲發動了一系列戰爭，導致數以千萬計的人死於暴力和貧困。美國捲入了所有這些戰爭，沒有一場發生在北美大陸，是為了捍衛自己的利益和西方民主國家的利益。當第二次世界大戰於 1945 年結束時，“聯合國聯盟”創建了一個新的國際法律體系，旨在限製或遏制未來的戰爭。美國在 30 年內作為戰鬥員兩次被召喚到歐洲後，同意在和平時期留在歐洲和亞洲，作為防止第三次世界大戰在某個地方爆發的唯一途徑。這導致了北大西洋公約組織的成立，該組織將美國軍隊和基地留在歐洲已有 70 多年。
在大多數情況下，傳統的征服戰爭已根據聯合國條約得到阻止。希望避免戰爭的國家會保留比 19 世紀時更小的陸軍和海軍。美國比任何其他國家都富裕得多，與其中許多國家簽訂了條約，以在其領土上保持最低限度的軍事存在。這有助於他們保持安全並推進美國的首要外交目標，即不再有大戰、不再有帝國征服，和平的商業和外交作為每個國家外交政策工具的不斷威脅的戰爭和暴力的替代方案。
當然，它並不總是有效。任何法律制度都無法阻止所有犯罪。與此同時，當前的國際體系雖然可以防止國家間發生最嚴重的衝突，但在防止內戰將國家撕成碎片方面明顯較弱。但是，所有這一切都比 1945 年之前的幾個世紀發生在非洲、亞洲和歐洲的情況要好得多，當時大部分時間都在某個地方發生血腥衝突、入侵和征服。無處不在的假設是，美國在海外的存在在維持戰爭最小化方面利大於弊。
第二次世界大戰的大聯盟是為了人類的利益，謝天謝地結束了英國和歐洲的殖民主義。歐洲遭到破壞，但是美國和蘇聯都從戰爭中走出來，使西歐擺脫了蘇聯的影響，或者更糟的是，美國向歐洲投入了大量資源，以期防止另一場世界大戰。
二戰後，我很難看到我們參與的許多戰爭是合理的。福克蘭群島、塞拉利昂、巴爾幹半島的干預、格林納達的干預（儘管女王很生氣，但她沒有接到白宮的電話哈哈😂）就是一些例子。韓國得到了聯合國的支持。但是越南、伊拉克、阿富汗絕對一無所獲，我們的一些 FP 一直希望我們支持一些非常殘暴的政權作為我的敵人敵人，但像薩達姆或聖戰者/塔利班一樣轉向我們......沙特人正在製造浩劫在也門，應該借給以色列以建立兩國解決方案。外交政策極其複雜，不是一門精確的科學，但我們在某些情況下被錯誤地領導，美國和英國的男孩和女孩不應該為政治家的地緣政治慾望或淺薄的心血來潮而死。
Yes, the United States has the ability to withdraw all of its overseas troops and bases and only have diplomatic relations with other countries. However, whether or not this is advisable or feasible is a matter of debate.
The United States maintains a significant military presence overseas, with troops stationed in dozens of countries around the world. This presence has been the subject of debate, with some arguing that it is necessary for maintaining global stability and protecting American interests, while others argue that it is costly, counterproductive, and even harmful to American interes
錢，主要是。
The protection that the base offers is nice, but the paychecks that flow into the local economy on the 1st and 15th of each month are the real draws.
Then there are the rental fees the US Government pays the Host Government, and the capital improvements that remain in place when the US leaves.
And having the US deployed in your country means you can cut back on your own defense spending and move that into social programs.
So, yeah. Money.
A lot of people don’t know this fact, but our best ally in the world is not the UK, not France, not even Canada…. It’s Australia…
We basically have the same history. We were born out of the bosom of the British Empire. When England, Ireland, or Scotland became overpopulated, the British Nobles sent their excess populations to our lands, so we’re basically the descendants of the same people. And we basically conquered our current countries the same way, but we really don’t like to talk about that.
The only difference between our two populations is that the United States is essentially 80% (more l
Of course they could, but they don’t because they need overseas bases and allies. Without those bases and allies the US couldn’t project military power.
No, of course not. The USA only have overseas bases because allied countries allow it. In the UK, the US military are stationed in RAF military bases, owned by the British Ministry of Defence. They are not owned by the USA.
Rather more. However _number_ of bases is an irrelevancy, much beloved by brain dead lefties. What those bases hold and can do is rather more significant.
Example, we used to have about 29 “Bases” in Panama, from Ft Randolph in the North to Fort Amador in the south. If we had consolidated all our troops into CLayton-Curundu-Corozal-Albrook, and made that one “base,” would we really have less basing that we had with 29? Would we have had 1/29th of the basing? Obviously not, the number made no difference whatsoever.
This was written about 40 years ago by a Canadian Journalist… And it still holds true for the most part.
“Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by
I wish!
I like some of the Monroe Doctrine of President James Monroe, and the “walk softly but carry a big stick” ideas of President “Teddy” Roosevelt. I do not like the parts where we intervene in other countries internal affairs though. To quote a comedian I like, “You can kill all of them MF’ers. I don’t have nary one (fill-in-the-blank) friend”.
I believe that we should guard our borders, not allow communist/socialist adversaries to park missiles nearby and stay out of eons-old squabbles between certain countries who are fighting wars based on some cockamamie religious disagreements. Come cl
Anyone and anything that makes the United States look wrong.
I have realised something profound in the last week. As I look at what has happened in our country in comparison to the USA I am struck by a startling cultural difference:
What I am about to say does not necessarily apply to individual Americans. It applies at the highest level of national behaviour - the sort of thing that allows us to reduce ‘America’ to a single identity, even though it is extremely clear that the ‘United States’ is an ironic name at this point. Nevertheless, I think it is obvious - and stands in contrast to my Aust
As a preliminary, of course we lost the war. The US spent 10 years, hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions, in today's money), sacrificed almost 60,000 American lives, and suffered hundreds of thousands of American wounded. Aside from the millions of deaths suffered by our Vietnamese allies, Vietnamese foes, but mostly by innocent Vietnamese civilians. The justification for all that blood and sacrifice was to prop up the South Vietnamese government, maintain the sovereignty of South Vietnam, and keep her from going communist. It was all for nothing: when the dust settled South Vietnam
Though technically not foreign bases, there are foreign units permanently based in the US for training purposes.
For example, the German military has mainted a permanent presence at Fort Bliss, TX, since 1956. Though the German contingent has been downsized in the last decade or so, the Luftwaffe’s Air Defense School still operates there. Basically, the Texas Desert is better for shooting missiles than Germany is.
德國空軍也有一個單位駐紮在新墨西哥州的霍洛曼空軍基地。Bliss 的一些東西已經搬到了 Holloman，以減少佔地面積（和成本）。在任一情況下
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。