# US occupies Australia



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

To send 2500 marines 
I guess they have "spare" troops to deploy from Iraq? And then there is this:

Discussion about Chinese naval ambitions


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Just another example of a politician spending taxpayers money (sorry ... spending borrowed money) on worthless activities. I am sure Austrailia likes it. 

Why don't they send 2500 well paid, money spending government workers to one of our little towns. Slave lake could use an economic boost. Newfoundland would never turn away a soldier with money in his/her pocket. It's not their way.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Why don't they send 2500 well paid, money spending government workers to one of our little towns. Slave lake could use an economic boost. *Newfoundland would never turn away a soldier with money in his/her pocket.* It's not their way.


Ironically though, when an entire CF18 base needed to temporarily relocate, Goose Bay Newfoundland did exactly that (they used it as an opportunity to go on strike). I guess they don't understand economics as you and I. Dutch protesters nearly forced my current base to relocate due to the "smog from aircraft" until they saw the economic impact that it would have on their towns



OptsyEagle said:


> Just another example of a politician spending taxpayers money (sorry ... spending borrowed money) on worthless activities. I am sure Austrailia likes it.


I guess in your mind, having US bases on Hawaii was a waste as well? Just let Japan occupy it during WWII to set up their own staging base? If the US is paying to maintain a competent Marine force, they might as well set them somewhere strategic. It's like when people complain about security costs for big events, they fail to realize that we have to train for that stuff annually anyways


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> I guess in your mind, having US bases on Hawaii was a waste as well? Just let Japan occupy it during WWII to set up their own staging base? If the US is paying to maintain a competent Marine force, they might as well set them somewhere strategic. It's like when people complain about security costs for big events, they fail to realize that we have to train for that stuff annually anyways


I didn't say get rid of the soldiers. My point is that they should leave these guys on American soil and Hawaii qualifies on that point. That is what I would do if in charge. Redeploy them wherever and whenever needed. If you move them to Australia, your enemies will make you wish they were in Iceland, and vise versa. Don't bother with this game. It is too expensive to play


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yea but the US maintains enough soldiers to carry out foreign policies, so if they're paying to maintain their training, it makes sense to place them strategically on allied land. They've always had bases oriented towards Russia, and now they're closing those down and focusing on the Pacific etc. Bases they closed down were far bigger actually

My analogy was people complaining about the cost of Olympic/G20 security, when they fail to realize we need to train to secure such an event without notice. It doesn't really do much good to have soldiers sitting around doing nothing, and those foreign bases have many uses


----------



## jagger (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCXxDU_GXKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lE-ftiBZfs&feature=related

WTF are they doing this for? Australia is a developed first world nation, they can pay for their own defense. As for China, nations will spend more on defense as they become developed. America still spends 6X more than China on defense.


----------

