Should the United States maintain a military presence in the Middle East after the conflict has ceased?

Question

to secure the peace and protect the flow of oil into the U.S. ?

Answer 1

The 6th fleet is permanently stationed in the Mediterranean, the 7th in the Indian ocean, bases in Turkey, in Kuwait, cooperation with Israel, Egypt and probably more.
The US had and will have a continuous presence in and around the middle east, irrespective of the conflict in Iraq.
But once the Iraqi security forces achieve control of Iraq, US military presence on the ground should be minimized

Answer 2

The flow of oil would not be a good reason, but yes for a time it would be wise.

Most people think most of the oil comes from the Middle East, said one man at a gas station in St. Paul said.

But this is perhaps one of the great fuel fallacies. In fact, the two single largest foreign oil suppliers for the United States are its two closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Oil from those countries makes up about 35 percent of the supply.

After that is Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The United States actually gets just as much oil from Africa as from the Middle East. In Minnesota, 80 percent of our oil comes from Canada....continued in link below

Answer 3

I think we will be forced to withdrawn troops in the region because of the radioactive fallout.

I see what you are clearly implying here but the US gets 1/2 its oil from countries other than mideast ones, China is the biggest mideast oil importer and the US is #2.


In addition look at the serious injustices that the leaders of many large mideast countries have done to people in their OWN countries and the surrounding ones.

Example: The Iraqi people welcomed US forces when we over threw Saddam. Iranian and Syrian insurgents have spread fear and hatred for the U.S. because of the terrorist acts they commit against innocent civilians.

Once we get rid of the Iranian and Syrian governments I think there will be safety and peace in the region and those countries will become serious contributors in the world.

Answer 4

The U.S. has no right to invade foreign countries and maintain military presence there unless that has been requested by the country itself. Certainly not for the reasons you mentionned.

We do not live in a world where it is appropriate to take things you need by force. Besides, aligning soldiers along pipelines would just make targets of the soldiers, as lining the streets of Tehran has done.

Answer 5

cultural divides bypass lower back added than united statesa. has existed. more beneficial modern motives. Iran began more beneficial or a lot less with Kohmeni, study it. the U. S. supported a corrupt dictator of a few form in Iran. for the period of a protest in the 70's the U. S. sponsored authorities fired on protestors killing some volume. there turned right into a revolution. Khomeni changed into an important religious make certain. the U. S. ought to have helped attempt to suppress the human beings and prop up this corrupt authorities. the U. S. embassy changed into taken over and that i'm sensible some were killed yet i don't have specifics. To punish them for turning adversarial to a regime pleasant to the U. S., the U. S. has performed all it may to punish and villify Iran ever in view that and that i'm sensible some in Iran do a comparable to you. Iraq, there changed into in no way extremely a conflict with Iraq, in basic terms opportunities. The allies and brits created maximum of those center jap countries, they before had little cohesion or critical administration. After WWII, they began fooling round with the authorities. attempting to make militaries they could administration with the intention to circumvent yet another Hitler from gaing administration of the oil. in a unmarried way the completed difficulty is a catch meant to not be managed by using absolutely everyone. perhaps Bushco were given stuck in the U. S.'s own catch (or am I getting over excited?) We were extremely joyful as plum to provide Saddam his pastime and promote him guns. Saddam Invaded Kuwait in the early ninety's. We went in and massacred his fleeing squaddies. we've kept administration of him ever in view that. He changed into apparently being a foul dogs or it changed into only a function of the standard public paranoia that occured after 9/11.

Answer 6

Every nation around the world should be responsible for their own borders. The United States of America should never be occupying any country for any reason.

However, because the world is smaller today due to air travel, communication and the connection of commercial markets, there will always be an interest in the stability of other nations. Without economic stability, the tourist trade, imports/exports, banking, currency exchanges and stock markets, etc., will cause much hardship in the absence of that stability.

We are living in a very inter-dependent world.

Answer 7

you know, there are troops in many places of this great Earth that you, I and many other Americans never knew existed. the US pull out? that would mean that the US government would look vulnerable, once again. come on, what else would our troops do?, support US disasters, control the borders, help our poor and homeless, be home for our families. come on, it is not just about the oil, it is appearance, we have to look like the bad asses on Earth. Are WE the enemy? we are the enemy to the US. pulling out would hurt us, at least have some troops there.

Answer 8

Nope no way. Wit the current image of Americans abroad being as low and bad as it is (especially the military) I would for-see a LOT of problems with that. People would get their backs up immensely. Sensitivity is needed. Not "American strength" whatever the h*ll that is anyway.

Answer 9

"to secure the peace and protect the flow of oil into the U.S."

You don't secure peace with military presence, that is where you are WRONG and our government is WRONG.

Answer 10

if the united states does not wage wars money on the military would be spent for nothing. Oil, every body knows it will soon be worthless, why fuel cell cars are being develop then?