Foreign troops on national soil

[Tidus44]

Reading through the various posts, particularly through the OPs, a few thoughts come to mind.

First; from perhaps too many years of experience as a member of the best military in the world and only true Marines;**

A. No one likes foreign troops stationed in their country, no matter what the reason.

B. No foreign troops like being stationed in your country, no matter how “nice” you may think it is.

 

However, I am somewhat confused with the concept of having a vote on issues.

 

that the people of any nation should have the right to decide on these important matters and not just the government

 

Isn’t everything the government does important?

While I can appreciate the concern the OP has with the specific issue raised, I’m sure it isn’t the only concern that exists within the population and it makes one wonder exactly what form of system is envisioned to address all the “important” issues that any citizen or group holds?

Vote on everything; vote on a list of topics that call for a vote?

How would this all be determined – by vote?

I suppose if one has a hundred years or so to work on the system, it might eventually work.

 

If one thinks voters are apathetic with voting every few years to elect a representative to look after these important issues, what level of apathy is envisioned having them vote on every issue that comes up? Most voters wouldn’t even know and certainly would not understand all of the facts on the issue they were voting on.

I also wonder when would the votes be held? Daily? Whenever something came up? How is an emergency situation handled? In a few weeks after the issue is raised, the facts distributed to hopefully have an informed public and then after voting takes place?

 

What a bloody mess that would be.

 

If one does not hold any faith with their government to do the right things and less faith in the ability of the populace to vote the correct people into government in order to do the right things, then I would think one should perhaps consider their position and perhaps their thought process about it. I have a massive amount of doubt that life is that much more terrible or different in Australia than anywhere else with a democratic system and life isn't actually all that bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**I do have a deep respect for all my military brothers and sisters, serving or retired, but a little rivalry and bragging never hurt anyone. No offense intended.

[HeyYou]

Reading through the various posts, particularly through the OPs, a few thoughts come to mind.

First; from perhaps too many years of experience as a member of the best military in the world and only true Marines;**

A. No one likes foreign troops stationed in their country, no matter what the reason.

B. No foreign troops like being stationed in your country, no matter how "nice" you may think it is.

 

However, I am somewhat confused with the concept of having a vote on issues.

 

that the people of any nation should have the right to decide on these important matters and not just the government

 

Isn't everything the government does important?

While I can appreciate the concern the OP has with the specific issue raised, I'm sure it isn't the only concern that exists within the population and it makes one wonder exactly what form of system is envisioned to address all the "important" issues that any citizen or group holds?

Vote on everything; vote on a list of topics that call for a vote?

How would this all be determined – by vote?

I suppose if one has a hundred years or so to work on the system, it might eventually work.

 

If one thinks voters are apathetic with voting every few years to elect a representative to look after these important issues, what level of apathy is envisioned having them vote on every issue that comes up? Most voters wouldn't even know and certainly would not understand all of the facts on the issue they were voting on.

I also wonder when would the votes be held? Daily? Whenever something came up? How is an emergency situation handled? In a few weeks after the issue is raised, the facts distributed to hopefully have an informed public and then after voting takes place?

 

What a bloody mess that would be.

 

If one does not hold any faith with their government to do the right things and less faith in the ability of the populace to vote the correct people into government in order to do the right things, then I would think one should perhaps consider their position and perhaps their thought process about it. I have a massive amount of doubt that life is that much more terrible or different in Australia than anywhere else with a democratic system and life isn't actually all that bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**I do have a deep respect for all my military brothers and sisters, serving or retired, but a little rivalry and bragging never hurt anyone. No offense intended.

 

I have zero faith in our government, along with a significant percentage of folks I talk to..... Yet, we still keep electing the same morons into office....... If anyone thinks that turning every decision over to the same people that elect the same morons year after year, I would suggest some therapy might be in order.....

 

Our government doesn't do what's best for the american people. They do what is best for THEM, and the folks that supply the big bucks that get them elected. Do you think all the factory workers that are now out of jobs thought free trade agreements were a good idea? Had that come up for a vote, all of them would have been soundly defeated. And what about Obama's health care mandate? Think that would have passed? Not just no........

 

Thank you for your service. :D

[grannywils]

Ok, in spite of basically agreeing with most everything that HeyYou says as a rule, I am going to intrepidly step out here and say that I must agree with Tidus44 on this one. Those of us who live in democracies cannot expect to take a vote on every single step that is taken by our elected governments.

 

While I do largely agree with HY on what he has to say about our current government in the USA and the government we have had for the last several years; that is our own fault. We elected them all and continue to do so.

 

The OP is apparently distressed over the Australian government's decisions regarding the placement of foreign troop bases on their soil without specifically requesting a referendum from the Australian people approving such a step. I am not an Australian, but I do not see this as the same kind of issue that he apparently does. I do not agree that as a United States citizen I would have a problem if we had foreign troops based here for the purpose of training and preparation with our military's full knowledge and guidance. By the same token, I recognize that I do not live on an island nation and perhaps do not feel the same sort of isolation that he does. However, if anything, I might think that having friendlies around would give me a sense of comfort in such a situation.

 

Don't know if I have addressed any of the concerns originally expressed, but I did my best....

[Tamujiin]

Well, This one is going to be long. Maybe...

 

I remember at the turn of the century, gas was 95 cents a gallon, Cigarettes were $2.00 a pack, and a twelve pack of beer was $5-$10. Depending on what you chose to buy. ( "these are just examples")

 

Then 9/11 happened.

 

Depending on what you believe, and i don't believe the whole thing was the truth, but I will use the "media" as an example. We were invaded by foreign agents. They took control of 4 of our commercial airlines. They attacked us. Because according to the reasons, we live a "western" type of life. Since then Germany, the UK, India, Russia, China, Indonesia, France, and various other countries, have "thwarted" attacks against them by "terrorists".

 

What would these countries have done without American help? Possibly, been attacked. Threw and threw. thousands, perhaps millions of people, you me, Jim bob down the road, could have been killed.

 

Regardless if you believe George W, Bush "caused" all this, or if you believe it was actual terrorism, one thing is for certain. 9/11 opened a can of worms that needed to be dealt with. That is a debate in its own right.

 

It opened up a can of worms that produced, A world recession, High unemployment everywhere, high gas prices, for most "western" countries, global paranoia, and a lack of common sense. Now when i talk about America in this context, whether you like it or not, George W. Bush's term as the president of the united states of America, good or bad, affected the world. Not bush himself per-say but his entire two terms, had more of a global effect, then a national one.

 

( all some how miracously controlled. what if it was a strait forward nuclear attack, or an actual army that invaded? TOTAL CHAOS! somehow it was just 4 planes? hmmm okay. i never got that part of it. thats a debate in itself though. the term, Controlled Aggresion comes ro mind. )

 

During this time, America expanded its foreign presence around the world, in an "interest" of protecting people from global terrorism. Our interest's, in all actuality became what America consumes the most of in the world. Oil.

 

America has always had an interest in the freedom and liberties of the people of the world. The bases there, on any foreign soil, are there contractually, binded by agreements with the other nations government. the Citizen themselves, actually will never have a say on that. It is not America's intention to go to war for "slaves" it is not america's intention to go to war for Oil. If we go to war, as has been the case, in the past, numerous times, conspiracy theories aside, It has been for two reasons. 1. To prevent an imminant attack or....

2. In the intrest of freedom, and world peace.

 

The current American president, Barack Hussien Obama, Has had to try and clean this mess up. Ive payed attention to what Obama says and does, and i think we all need a little common sense in our lives from our leaders.

 

Starting with this, We get a base in a low/un defended country, we train you, and when your country feels it is trained enough, or has the tools to continue the training, we get the hell out. under a certain time line, if we did not complete the training say with in five years, we must leave.

 

The reason we have bases in Japan, Australia and throughout the world are really actually different, After world war two, Japan became a great ally of the country it went to war with. But also lost the soverign right to build up its military. Things may have been different if Korea didnt split. Japan occupied Korea for 35 years before world war two, and with japan on the brink, China and Korea could have wiped them out, IF America didnt intervene. Our intention wasnt to wipe out the Japanese during world war 2. Our objective was to stop them from invading our country and enslaving us. Emperor Hirohito, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, had a three way "agreement" on how if they succeded they would divide the world. Other smaller nations either by force or by choice were included into the "axis" powers.

 

Australian/American Bases exsist for a few reasons, mainly because we are allys. America and her allys stopped Japan from taking over all of Australia. In payment for this "service" im sure we were paid back with bases contracted to us. And they have been renewed through the years, because of 1. Communism, and the war in Vietnam, and various other reasons. and 2. Most recently Communist China.

 

One of America's Primary interests, is freedom. America, No Matter how big she is, can stop the little man, from being corrupt, foreign or domestic. We choose the "idiots" only because, theyre educated, went to school, have no criminal record ( or a small non important one. ), and are rich. These things in a democratic society, "force" you to be part of the community, from the city level to the national level. What makes Politicians Corrupt, is the game they play, and the roads they walk down in life.

 

So really with saying all that, we are actually debating something that started at the end of world war two, and through the years, through various reasons, whether for necessity or by corrupt officials, the need for bases on foreign lands.

 

Most U.N membership nations, share "bases". America, has foreign Military personnel in our country all the time. the difference is, We own our bases, and will not lease them out. And "share" there facilities. Im sure we also dont own "most" of the bases on foreign land, the bases are just leased out for a certain number of years.

Like Hong Kong was to the English Commonwealth.

One of the reasons why, and the time draws near where it is no longer an excuse, is by policy, the world wants to make sure "everybody evil involved" in WW2 is dead. that way we dont get the ONE nut, to try it all again. TWO examples of a similar scenerio.

1. Nuclear Deterence, and why america and russia never scrap theyre stock piles of nuclear weapons, because a smaller country could get them and use them in an "evil" way to attack a "superior" military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Nuclear_power_and_deterrence

2. At the end of the movie JFK with Kevin Costner it says in 2029 all documents on the assassination of JFK will be declassified, the reasons why? Any governmental people at the time guilty of a crime will be dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_%28film%29

 

These are just examples of why the world does what it does. And the point of Military bases on foreign soil is a barn buster, can opener, to larger debates.

 

Whether you like it or not, and it is fact, what america does, currently in the world today, affects everything else. I only use my Country as an example because well, it does a lot of things mostly, like this subject through out the world and has its "hands" in a lot of places.

{And if you took the time to read this post, it has many points of this debate.}

Edited May 5, 2012 by tamujiin

[Maharg67]

I have both enjoyed and found thought provoking all posts of this topic. I started this topic with the firm decision to gain from what others have posted. I agree with much that has been said.

 

I consider that having a referendum, public debate, on every subject would be exhausting, wasteful of resources and ultimately self defeating. BUT I consider there is a very short list of issues that need strong positive debate, if not also a referendum. The placing of large numbers of foreign troops on home soil, on a more permanent basis, is one of them. I stress that I am not talking about smaller numbers, non permanent training and much like it including the taking on of foreign personal for special training. Many might see the difference between the two as non important but I consider it to be quite the opposite.

 

I do not want to see long term tensions arise in Australia that have risen in some, though not all, countries.

 

I consider the issue more than Australians get to decide, in general, if or not foreign soldiers get to be placed more permanently on Australian soil in larger numbers (tens of thousands plus) but if the decision is 'yes', just what sort of conditions that any foreign forces are based in Australia under. That is legal, political, etc.

 

I disagree totally with the unquestioning acceptance that citizens have no say in such matters because of agreements made between governments, including the home government. If in grave doubt, throw out the agreement. I tend to be cynical about democracies but hopeful about democratic processes.

 

My concerns have nothing to do with Australia being the smallest continent, not an island as such, or any feeling of 'isolation'. From experience I have learned that people around the world can easily feel 'isolated' with such a feeling having nothing to do with actual geographical isolation.

 

I have gained a good deal from this debate topic but am not sure how further it can go. I will probably not change my mind about the need for robust, healthy debate here in Australia on this issue. I do not even pretend to speak for anybody else. I have changed a little in that I accept that a referendum would only be necessary, or effective, if supported by the majority of Australians during a robust healthy debate. In that case a referendum must be held even if the Australian Federal Government has to be forced to accept and support this move. I am far from the only Australian with concerns on this issue.

 

I will consider to review different peoples' feedback to the topic and maybe one day my ideas will shift again. Who know, miracles can happen even with pig headed folks like myself.

[Moveing]

The government I love lived over 100 years ago and nothing like it exists now to my knowledge.

 

Ah the good old days, when men were men and wives were property.

Oh yeah every conservativ will hold woman as property in the kitchen, barfood and pregnant. :rolleyes:

 

Do you know that before World War one a mason or carpenter in the german reich could pay his rent for the hole year by three weeks work? That the austrian K.u.k Monarchy was the smallest kind of government ever existet in europa?(Which spawend the austrian school of economics). Yeah, Men where Men and they didn't care for meaningless BS such as Football, racecars and other meaningless entertainment. Idoles were scientists, explorers and people who brought their community forward instead of popstars and actors. Reduce all this to "wives were property"(What isn't historical accurate) is low, its total loooooow.

 

Maharg67

Defense security concerns are always important but if democracy itself is lost during the process, just what are we defending?

Here goes the holy cow democracy once again. You know that in the meaing of the word and its origin, just the armed man are involved in the process anyway.

 

 

csgators

You are not free when you can't open a business without jumping through city, state and federal layers of bureaucracy just so they can decide if you are allowed to make money and just how much of that money you are required to pay to the slave masters (government).

I realy like that kind of talk.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Moveing

[dazzerfong]

This is an Australian speaking, with (one) Australian's point of view.

 

If you guys did a little bit more research, they're not exactly deploying Marines in the any of the 9 states and territories permanently: it's just a 6-month exchange program. I don't mind those, to be brutally honest (hell, it was a military exchange program that my father met my mother!)

 

Though, now that we're onto the intricacies of 'democracy', I believe it's a fanciful contradiction, at least in Australia. I can think of three things on the top of my head which severely affected Australia, yet was not (by referendum) selected by the people:

 

1. Goods and Services Tax (up to 10% surcharge).

2. 'Carbon Tax' (biggest fraud in my opinion).

3. Mid-term transition of Prime Minister Rudd to Gillard (the subsequent re-election does not count, in that the PM already changed, and were it now the Indies and Greenies which bailed Labour out, they're in deep water).

 

To be honest, I think that the issue of foreign troops on national soil is not so much the issue of politics as to demographics. Historically, foreign troops have stirred up some domestic problems (WWII instantly comes to mind), but even then, you never know when we'll actually need QRF's from our allies. Though, the Aussie government is rumoured to have a plan to place an American base in one of our mainly-uninhabited islands.

 

However, regarding the other Asian countries' concerns, specifically China, I don't think they'll care too much, specifically China. Other than Tibet (which was out of desperation in that Mao Zedong really needed a place to hide out for a while), what countries have China invaded? They're always caught up trying to kill each other rather than conquering others. On the other hand, they have a strong hand over our economy, so really, it's very hard for me to say which side to support at this point.

 

@ Moveing:

 

Sorry, I really don't understand what you're trying to say: your sentences don't really make sense to me, to be honest. Sorry.

 

P.S. One thing, though: are Marines considered to be under the Navy, or are they now a separated military division?

Edited May 5, 2012 by dazzerfong

[marharth]

@Dazzer

Last I checked the Marines are still part of the Navy. They are commonly considered a separate group even though they are not.

 

@Moveing

Did you really just say that women had the same rights years ago?

Edited May 5, 2012 by marharth

[HeyYou]

If we go to war, as has been the case, in the past, numerous times, conspiracy theories aside, It has been for two reasons. 1. To prevent an imminant attack or....

2. In the intrest of freedom, and world peace.

 

Say what? So, why did we invade Iraq?? They weren't a threat, they had no WMD's, there were no terrorists. We had zero reason to go there. We invaded because George wanted to. He cherry picked his intelligence in order to justify it. Anyone that disagreed with the company line was ignored, marginalized, or simply fired. Why do you think Colin Powell resigned? He wanted nothing to do with it.

 

Why did we invade Afghanistan? We went there, ostensibly, to get ONE man. One. Why invade an entire country? To paint the US as "only" going to war for the "right" reasons, is disingenuous at best.

[Aurielius]

@dazzerfong

On board they are under direct Navy command and on land their own. The Marines though having their own internal command structure ultimately report to the Secretary of the Navy and fall under our control. So short answer is no.

On another front it was good to have an alternate Australian view of the exchange program that didn't see it as the end of democracy as you know it.

 

@Marharg

Nations cannot be run like a local town hall with votes on every bit of business, nothing would ever get done. The only nation that remotely operates in that manner is Switzerland and even they do not get a referential vote on everything.

 

@HY

We went to Afghanistan to disestablish the Taliban government not to get ONE man. The same Taliban that our current fearless leader now wants to negotiate with, shades of Vietnam all over again. My empathy goes out to every damn serviceman that was asked to risk his/her life for something the government hasn't the guts to risk electoral displeasure over. If they feel used and abused, welcome to that dubious club. Nothing pisses me off more than asking a young person to play high stakes poker with their life when their own government hasn't the balls to finish the job.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Aurielius