I say all American troops should be within US borders and God help anyone who crosses us. Let the Arabs kill each other. How would you feel if your local police were patrolling other cities? That's what the government has our military doing. We can't police the world. Who agrees?
2007-02-04 01:30:14 · 12 answers · asked by tumbleweed1954 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes. You are 100 per cent right. Once America stops interfering in other country's the world will be safer
2007-02-04 01:34:23 · answer #1 · answered by zed10096 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The job of the local police is to patrol the cities.The state local and county police already patrol different cities to prevent crimes. Your theory worked real well before we got invaded in WW2. Then what ? You believe we just stay at home and suck our thumbs and hope no one will be mad at us ? If you really follow your logic, then no one should come into our country as well. We shouldn't help out any other country , regardless of their need. Isolationist views need to be 100% or not at all. As long as we are in a global economy and we import goods from other countries, your theory on the military is flawed. We are the leaders of the free world, like or not, with that comes the responsibility to protect our interests anywhere in the world. Letting Arabs kill each other does not solve a thing or promote peace. Most Arab citizens wants peace as badly as we do. They live in fear every day of their lives. We owe it to mankind to deliver that peace. Until Peace is found, the threat against Peace at home is all to real. Before we had troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, we had 9/11. Tell me how 3000 innocent people having been killed in an office building could warrant us putting our heads in the sand in the US and not stirring up the sand over there ?
2007-02-04 02:00:00 · answer #2 · answered by meathead 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the size of the military would have to be reduced by over 60% due to the fact that you just could not keep our military employed just watching our borders. You then would have to deal with over a million new unemployed people on the market. Also, the federal government would have to pay trillions in severence pay to those involuntarily separated. Get real. Also, our absence would shift the balance of power worldwide and there would be military action in Korea, Japan and Eastern Europe without us there to prevent it. The Russia and China would fill the void created by our absence and eventually crush the little walnut we had become.
2007-02-04 01:45:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not agree. We, US citizens, have to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to first protect our well being, then to protect our interests world wide, if necessary.
Isolation does not work. Look at North Korea and Myanmar as examples.
We live in a world of instant communication. It would not be possible to isolate the entire US population. Besides the military, there are US citizens scattered all over the world. How would yo protect them and their interests? Answer: you cannot by hiding on a military fort in the middle of Kentucky.
2007-02-04 01:42:21 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately we need oil from "the Arabs". Stop consuming it and you can send soldiers home. Also, we need cheap labor to prop up the consumer economy, so could end up in a war with China. It's similar to the proxy battles fought against Communism, which was essentially a fight against having to pay more for goods and services from the third world.
2007-02-04 01:40:15 · answer #5 · answered by laurelandhearty 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I Agree. By being in Iraq what is anybody achieving?? giving target practice for the Iraqis??
to leogrl: Why didn't you help your own citizens after Katrina then??
Outside world more important than poor americans ??
2007-02-04 01:58:21 · answer #6 · answered by jaco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree but the problem is that it is estimated that we already have over 2 million terrorist already in our country. So what do you do about that. This is larger than our current military. I truly believe that at some stage we are going to see fighting in the US just as we are seeing what is going on in Iraq now.
2007-02-04 01:43:51 · answer #7 · answered by tbird 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The opinion you express was common in the 1930's. We found out on December 7, 1941 that it's impractical. We have interests outside of our borders. Inevitably, as happened with Japan, out interests will conflict with someone elses. As for the middle east, because of our dependence on their oil it is in our interests to do whatever we can to create and maintain stability.
2007-02-04 01:39:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We could live within our own borders just fine, but first we would have to make liberalism a felony and jail all the cowards, then we could log and replant our forests and drill for oil, ect.
2007-02-04 01:37:07 · answer #9 · answered by 007 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We have people who protect our borders. Too bad we have judges that don't. Our troops are needed around the world. There are too many places in the world who would endure suffering if we were not there. I disagree with you.
2007-02-04 01:50:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋