Support NeoGAF

[Technosteve]

Well America will just ban uour dota players from the majors

 

[TarNaru33]

Ok, but why are we supposed to prevent that? and with our military? In case they attack Philippines?

It goes beyond military, and it is in U.S interest to make sure there is a balance of power in all theaters, Europe, Middle-East, and Asia. Contrary to what many probably tell themselves, instability is not in U.S interest, nor is allowing another power dominance of such an area that holds a significant amount of the world's trade.

EDIT: I see someone already explained to you in a better way.

Please do, they are just self-serving America and honestly even then a waste of tax dollars to maintain.

It is not a waste of tax dollars since these bases aide significantly in U.S military power projection, which itself offers more benefits to U.S when negotiating with hostile/rival countries.

America likes it keep everyone on its chain

I won't dispute this, but its more of keeping in check another power, not the ones it has bases in. The one that allows the base usually have a mutual goal to U.S in countering a power they can negotiate with fairly by themselves.

Normally I would say fine, if you dont want them there then kick em out. Its not the like the US would ever tolerate any country having a military base in the US.

But if your country signed a deal then I dont see how you can get out of it?

There is no reason for any allied nation to have a military base in U.S and U.S also have no reason to allow it, whereas its different the other way around. U.S do allow foreign troops in U.S for training though, even Afgan soldiers.

Too many of you have no regard for realistic geopolitical and military affairs, in that you see the ideal way it should be handled. That is nice and all, but that isn't how the world work.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Honest question, why do we need to be present in SE Asia?

Encircling China diminishes their ability to upset the global balance.

 

[BocoDragon]

Honest question, why do we need to be present in SE Asia?

Global hegemony.

 

[4Tran]

Encircling China diminishes their ability to upset the global balance.

But doing so also creates tensions that threaten the global balance. Right now, China's main response to the Asian Pivot creation of the AIIB and the New Silk Road so it's not all bad news. However, China has also undergone a big naval buildup (which admittedly would have happened anyways) and taken de facto control of most of the islands they claim.

 

[addik]

From what I heard the current agreement between the US and the Philippines allows for provisions when the administration wants the US out.

I don't think it's a good idea though. Abu Sayyaf has been threatening peace in Mindanao, especially since they have now links to ISIS. They were recently able to bomb Davao City and send bomb threats around the country. You would want the US army help you thwart the group.

 

[Valhelm]

Honest question, why do we need to be present in SE Asia?

American imperialism or Chinese imperialism. The Filipino people aren't exactly in an enviable position.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

But doing so also creates tensions that threaten the global balance. Right now, China's main response to the Asian Pivot creation of the AIIB and the New Silk Road so it's not all bad news. However, China has also undergone a big naval buildup (which admittedly would have happened anyways) and taken de facto control of most of the islands they claim.

Its just a stalling game. China will eventually have to mellow. They are in a partially artificial economic boom, but what NAFTA did to manufacturing in America is small potatoes to what automation will do to manufacturing in China. China's real estate bubble will burst and it's manufacturing will stagnate. It doesn't help that the majority of China is still extremely rural and the divide between urban and rural is bonkers. China is doing what it is doing now to try to stem the tide and lay the groundwork for what happens after.

 

[USC-fan]

Please pull out tomorrow.

 

[SURGEdude]

I'm starting to think he's the one with the drug problem. His actions are bizarre no matter how you look at it.

 

[Auto_aim1]

What did China offer him that he's so hostile to the US? This is kinda disturbing because I don't want Asian countries to be a puppet of China.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

What did China offer him that he's so hostile to the US? This is kinda disturbing because I don't want Asian countries to be a puppet of China.

I don't think it's even that- he seems to feel personally offended every time someone criticise his methods.

And something something about a denied Visa

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

It goes beyond military, and it is in U.S interest to make sure there is a balance of power in all theaters, Europe, Middle-East, and Asia. Contrary to what many probably tell themselves, instability is not in U.S interest, nor is allowing another power dominance of such an area that holds a significant amount of the world's trade.

It really depends on the administration. One of the cold war era formulations was basically that they intended to preserve a world of diversity, in opposition to a uniform series of states following the soviet model which would eventually threaten the American way of life. The realization that the communist states were themselves splitting apart, fracturing and no longer the monolithic entities that they were once believed paved the way to periods of detente and friendlier relations with communist states that were not aligned with the USSR directly (Yugoslavia is the definitive model, but later on China would be another).

This was also aligned with the sometimes conflicting goal to prevent the spread of communism to further parts of the world. Different people in each administration had different attitudes and objectives so the foreign policy of say, Nixon feels like a series of contradictions.

Today, I would probably say the general foreign policy of the United States is a balancing act between the desire to maintain stability, and a desire to foster change in a positive direction. Whereas Bush blitzed into Iraq and created a spectacular quagmire, Obama has taken a less hands on approach. Bush created a situation in Iraq, while Obama reacted to situations in Libya and Syria. Still getting hands dirty, still dropping bombs and sending men in, but not willing to commit significant ground forces or take on occupation duties.

At the same time as this, both Bush and Obama have been willing to stand by staples of the old order. While the American administrations would be more than happy to see the Saudis replaced by a pro-west democracy, they also don't really want to upset the apple cart. If there was some kind of large revolution or an internal coup, it would be very interesting to see how they might react, because it could easily go either way.

 

[titiklabingapat]

We seriously need to rethink our presence in SE Asia. As China's power continues to grow, it's only going to have more and more leverage on its neighbors. It seems like all it took to break the Philippines (as supposed stalwart, longtime ally) was blocking some of their produce being sold in China. And that's just the economic threat, once they have a decent amount of force projection they'd bring that to bear as well.

How do we sway countries to our side when they rely on trade with China? IMO, the pivot to Asia seems like a move destined to fail.

The Philippines is not really reliant on China as a trading partner and it was already booming based on local consumption alone, not exports. The Philippines has a big enough market for its own goods at home.This is nothing more than a political power play by Duterte.

 

[Luschient]

Good, another hit to the empire.

lmao, yeah this is quite the death blow

 

[Yoda]

Short-term gain (China essentially is paying a bribe to have them removed) while binding the Philippines to a sinking ship (China's economy). I suppose he'll be out of office by the time the economic ramifications begin.

 

[lupinko]

Short-term gain (China essentially is paying a bribe to have them removed) while binding the Philippines to a sinking ship (China's economy). I suppose he'll be out of office by the time the economic ramifications begin.

He can either enact Marshall Law or try to amend the constitution to remove term limits like every other president not named Aquino.

 

[YuShtink]

"Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?"

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Duterte wants US troops out in two years

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...e-wants-us-troops-out-in-2-years/3236744.html


Getting ready for the back down part 3

 

[Dancing Queen]

Spoiler

kidding. i get it now lol

I apologize. I was on my way to class and couldn't write an elaborated answer. If my International Relations (IR) professor saw that, he would definitely hit me and send me back two semesters. I will try to explain in a more through way, also in case anyone else has the same questions that we once all have in our lives.

IR is for states (countries) what Psychology is to humans. In Psychology you study people's behavior, thoughts, culture, beliefs, etc. In IR you study how states behave in the international arena, how they interact with each other.

Like every academic discipline, in IR you have a bunch of dudes trying to come up with explanations on how things work. Unfortunately, unlike Psychology, you cannot make experiments in a lab (what would happen if we nuke North Korea?) so you have to rely on history to analyze behavior and make predictions. Why states go to war? Why some states are rich and others poor? Why this regime collapsed? etc.

Once upon a time, this dude developed a theory that he called Realism (and there are many others). In this theory, briefly speaking, he argues that states want to be the MOST POWERFUL state of all states! That means, if they are the most powerful state, no one can challenge them or force them to do anything they don't want.

(Thinking as a head of state) When shit hits the fan (all out war), the safety of american citizens and the american state is the only concern of leaders. Or if you are from Japan, the safety of japanese citizens and the japanese state is your biggest concern above everything else.

The United States of America has the biggest military capability among all of the states in the world. YES, THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL STATE! That means the U.S. has negotiating power when it tries to pursue its national interests (economic growth, good and affordable health care, trading deals, resources for the national industry to develop itself, etc).

The United States presence in East Asia (or anywhere in the world, actually) is important because in the South China Sea for example, a lot of things necessary to run a country goes through there (to make it simple, imagine iPhones, food, fuel for cars, clothes, etc). If China becomes as powerful as the United States, China can start imposing its OWN WILL to pursue its OWN national interest. For example, China can tell other countries to import its own clothing and technology instead of importing them from United States; in consequence, people in U.S. will loose their jobs. If China becomes competitive in producing certain crops, american farmers will suffer, and farms will be shut down.

United States expends 711 billion dollars on its military annually, compared to 695 billion of THIRTEEN OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED!

That's the summarized version for a 5 year old.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Times like this I'm reminded of how idiotic the people are in this country and how ridiculous the concept of "Filipino pride" is.

That's national pride in every country, mate. Stupid across the board.

 

[entremet]

Global hegemony.

Actually business if you wanna be more accurate. Stabilizing trade and all that via safe passage by protecting international waters and trade routes.

 

[darkace]

Honest question, why do we need to be present in SE Asia?

US presence around the globe massively increases stability. The SEA shipping region is the busiest in the world, and the US 'patrols' it for the benefit of everyone.