The Korean military presence for instance, is due to an agreement that will expire only some years hence. The Koreans do not like the military presence at all, the government does.
And yet, the Korean people keep employing their democratic franchise to elect governments that want to keep the US military around. Perhaps the feelings of the Korean people are not as unequivocal as you suggest.
Japan's military was disarmed after the war, so I presume they have no choice but to keep the base, regardless of what the
people want. Are they allowed to develop their military yet?
They were allowed to develop a self-defense force from the beginning, and are currently rewriting their constitution to allow for a full-featured military. And not liking the alternative is not the same as not having a choice. And, again, if the Japanese are really so opposed to the bases, why do they keep electing governments that choose to keep them?
As for France, well, its not Japan is it? or some Third World country with no seat on the Security Council? I doubt the US could have refused.
Certainly we could have refused. France hasn't been in a position to dictate terms to the United States for some time now. It's just that the costs of refusing would be too high. Likewise, the costs of refusing to leave any country that asked would be too high, no matter how geopolitically insignificant the country might be. The reason is simple: refusing to leave at the request of a host country would result in most, if not all, host countries wanting us to leave, and we'd have a very difficult time finding new host countries. The entire arrangement is based on our good word, and violating that anywhere, even in a minor country, would undermine the entire endeavor.
Interesting though, I shall ask my Korean friend about their anti-base activity.
There are many anti-base operations though.
I never said that the bases are unanimously popular. But the anti-base activists don't represent the entire nations. The governments, on the other hand, do.
Hmm looks like you did it for me.
Not really. Owing to the details of the basing agreement, Cuba has never asked us to leave. But that situation is a historical anomaly; no similar basing arrangements have ever been so much as proposed. The mention of Cuba was intended to be a challenge to find a more relevant example, but apparently that suggestion was too subtle for you. Not that I'm unhappy to accept your concession, but still...
All the ones in the ME of course. e.g. Israel.
So, wait, you're saying Israel is a US-installed dictatorship defended by NATO, and that this underlies the petrodollar? Do you have the slightest inkling how far out into space you are right now?
And of course peace in the US and Europe is what all of us lesser mortals should be willing to die for. Asia and Americas? Arabs?
Funny, I thought I was explicit about including Asia and the Americas in the list of peaceful places we were supposed to be proud of. But, hey, why bother phrasing a reply that actually relates to my post when you can regurgitate shallow rhetoric instead?
