John Bolton is the proto Stepford wingnut. Factory made, that runs of bile and puppy blood with no war it doesn’t like and hippies be damned.

The mismatch of outward decorations is a design flaw, or just a bad day at the plant.

I wonder what he’d say if we were the occupied and not the occupiers? 

I know, that’s a childish question more at home in a freshman philosophy/bonghits session.  Still, the utter lack of empathy or even a passing familiarity with the idea of seeing something through someone else’s eyes is one of the first things on the wingnut/neocon character flaw list.

I think he’s OK with any occupation that kills off those ethnic types and lines the pockets of the rich folks here at home, and OWS does neither.

We don’t “occupy” Germany or Japan.  We have agreements with those two countries that include the definition of our NATO role in Germany and of protection role in Japan. 

Having been on some of those bases, I can tell you that the relationship between our service personnel and the base is not too different from an American base in a US state.  In Germany one entire town deeply regretted the US leaving, because of all the relationships that had been developed aside from the source of revenue.

My view is that New Yorkers have been extremely tolerant of OWS.  No one is forcing them to do anything.  People are being very helpful with meals, the use of bathroom facilities, and other amenities.  And this is in the face of meetings of residents who feel they have been abused by the OWS protestors. 

The winter might run the protestors off, but so far I have not heard of any official demanding that they leave.

Amherst, you are indeed a fucking idiot.  So you don’t think that mass arrests, or even events such as spraying pepper spray into the faces of calm, unresisting, enclosed female protesters is not an official expression of the officials wanting the protesters to leave? In Denver the governor decided to tear down the OWS encampment (after midnight, and after publically promising that the legal structures would be exempt, and then ignored that promise) and close the park they were in to everyone until further notice.  I’d call that a hint. 

Winter might thin their ranks, but after winter comes spring, then summer, and then campaign season will be in full swing; hmm, I wonder what will happen then?

I wonder what the average American would rather have, military bases in countries that are now fully capable of protecting themselves from outside threats, or Medicare?  Or Social Security?  The US spends more that the rest of the world combined on defense, and this includes the costs of maintaining some level of military presence in over 100 of the countires of the world.  Apparently that’s OK with you rethugs, but how about we consider letting some of these countries have a base or two on US soil; OMG, TREASON!  So why is it any different except that it shrinks your neocon Manichean woodie?  And don’t drop that exceptionalsim crap here, we’ll make you clean it up with your toothbrush.

StringOnAStick,
if you re-read my post, you will see that my comments about OWS were entirely directed at New York City.  You will need to talk with someone else regarding the other towns you mention.

A short time ago, the Democratic Party had complete control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.  During this period, Democrats had the power to enact just about anything they wanted in respect to military bases abroad.  For some reason, Democrats did not move in that direction. You would have to get in touch with them to complain about their inaction in closing military bases. 

Although Republicans did achieve a majority in the House in the 2010 elections, Democrats still control the Senate and of course have the Presidency.  My suggestion is for you to address your queries to President Obama, Senator Reid, or other Democrats on committees related to intelligence matters about closing military bases overseas.

Perhaps they could help you understand to your satisfaction.

I dunno, Amherst. I think String makes a damn good point about how a military presence from another country might be received on American soil.

I appreciate the overview of how NATO operates in Europe and how it’s perceived by the inhabitants. In the interest of not revealing personal details to the point of compromising my privacy, I’ll just say that I am probably more familiar with that topic than the average bear and leave at that, with the humble suggestion that your benign view of the US presence in Europe may not be as universally shared as you seem to imagine.

String also makes an excellent point about military expenditures and national priorities. To paraphrase Bill Maher, European countries get universal health care; we get a Blue Angels flyover during the Super Bowl. U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

For some reason, Democrats did not move in that direction.

Where some reason = some combination of political timidity, a non-lockstep party (including Blue Dogs, who don’t vote along with the other democrats very often), and the fact that their “complete control” of the Senate was 59 of these fractured seats out of 100 against a filibuster-happy opposition. It was not so clear cut as you make it out.

Betty,
I hope you are doing well and having a good Sunday.  Soon I will be moving out of the big city again, and my life should take a dramatic uptick at that point.

Am I missing something?  Has some country petitioned the US to allow them the put a military base on our soil?  To the best of my knowledge this is a completely hypothetical conjecture.  Unless some foreign power petitions the US to put a military base on our soil, i don’t understand the need for a discussion.

Yes.  I understand that our bases’ service personnel are greeted in different ways depending on the country and the location of the base.

I completely respect your desire for privacy.  I don’t plan to say much about my own military service. 

I think military expenditures abroad certain fit in the purview of discussions and debate.  I simply regard it as absurd to act as if the right is to be held responsible even in times when Democrats are in power.

Xecky G, I take your point.  However, President Obama arrived in Washington with so much political capital he was practically glowing in the dark.  The power in the executive branch, Senate and House was about as good an anyone can get in the political process.  It just doesn’t get any better than that.  And the Presidency and Senate are still powerful potentials.

You simply cannot blame Republicans for things Democrats did not do.

The power in the executive branch, Senate and House was about as good an anyone can get in the political process.  It just doesn’t get any better than that. 
===
Tell it to FDR.

Unless some foreign power petitions the US to put a military base on our soil, i don’t understand the need for a discussion.

It’s just a bit of context on how the locals feel about that presence. Economic benefits and protection against the now-nonexistent Soviet horde notwithstanding, it’s not all rainbows and unicorns for them, and it’s damn expensive for us.

Given that there’s a great deal more hostility toward the US in Iraq and that we’ve got a lot of nation-building to do here at home, blithely proposing an open-ended presence there as Bolton did was fiscally irresponsible and strategically dumb, in my opinion. But the entire Republican field seems to be parroting the same line or a variation of it. How anyone continues to view that party as strong on fiscal policy and national strength, I’ll never know.

Best of luck with your move. I’ve lived in cities and in the country and can be happy in either, but the country seems to suit me better now. I hate traffic.

You simply cannot blame Republicans for things Democrats did not do.

Nor did I.