You delight in comparing apples with oranges, don’t you. The SF tiger incident and geopolitical issues! Wow, that’s a huge stretch.
Kinda forgot that for the most part our overseas bases are there through political negotiation with the host nation. In instances where the host nation no longer allowed the U.S. to keep bases in their country, we have removed them. It’s not as if we have FORCED those host nations to allow us to maintain those bases, now is it? But, the anti-America, blame America first side of you is plainly visible from your post to me, so I’m not surprised at your attempt at revisionist supposition.
Those three individuals dangled their legs over a fence to entice the tiger to attack. The tiger did. Explain how that is equivalent to having negotiated military bases overseas?
"Wow, that’s a huge stretch."
In his post #437:
"..is foolish at best."
The zoo incident is a microcosm of our foreign “policy.” We taunt the tiger by having our troops in over 120 countries around the world, then sometimes have to wonder why the tiger attacks us. That we then have to shoot the tiger is an unfortunate (and unnecessary) byproduct of intervening in the affairs of other nations. Were we merely to VISIT other nations, say with a port call by an Amphibious Ready Group or a Carrier Battle Group, without taunting the tiger by STAYING, often for decades, we would be able to project all the power we need to without stirring up hatreds and resentments, as we do under our current policies.