Including iraq
2007-07-20 21:49:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You do not defend 138 nations.......you have a presence in them which is very different.
2007-07-20 21:56:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No...absolutely not.
Some of the answers are dead on. Our forces are in other countries to create a buffer zone between the attackers and the USA. Some forces are in other countries to protect them from attack (South Korea). Some are for mutual protection (Canada/USA, UK/USA) where there military has has presence in the USA. ( I live near NEADS [North East Air Defense System] which has Canadian and British troops).
The defense of our friends is the defense of ourselves. Go back to pre-WW II when we had no such arrangement. One madman was able to trounce all over our allies and friends until we could politically and practically mobilize. If the USA had made the mutual decision with her allies to post troops as a defense after WW I, WW II might have never happened.
Afghanistan is a triumph of the spirit of the world working together in the defense of all civilized nation. Though the Taliban is showing some weak signs of resurgence, I believe it is short lived. The World powers are united in a free Afghanistan.
As for Iraq...There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. There was no doubt that he had WMDs (Former President Clinton said that shortly after the invasion). There was no doubt that Iraq neighbors felt threatened by him.
There is NO doubt that the military plan was flawed from the start. Huge mistakes were made. The Iraqi military was asked to throw down their arms and go home, and we promised them we would call them when it was over. Tens of thousands of them did what we asked...and then we told these trained professionals that they worked and worshipped the wrong man and they were now criminals who were lucky they weren't being arrested. And an insurgency is born.
And yet we can NOT abandon Iraq. To do so would allow another terrorist state to rise. We must press the current government to make the changes necessary for an eventual draw down of US/UK forces. Troops who have served in Iraq that I have talked to have said the same thing: "Don't believe what you see on the news." They tell me that most Iraqis are glad we are there and appreciate the changes.
Think about it. Would you want your whole city/town judged by what is in your local newspaper? What makes it into your local newspaper...mostly the crime and idiotic things that 0.5% of the population does.
"Should we withdraw all our military from the 138 nations we defend?" Only if you want to alienate your friends, allies, acquaintences, aand their friends...only if you want to start WW III.
My thoughts on the subject.
2007-07-21 16:05:22 · answer #2 · answered by oneidacarpetguy 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The military presence in 138 countries includes marine guards at American embassies, and not a matter of "defending" other nations, there would have to be considerably more nations in the world to have the USA defending 138 and still have as many oppose you! You are not in fact the police men of the world you imagine yourselves to be.
2007-07-21 05:06:56 · answer #3 · answered by J John M T 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Which 138 nations?! I think you're getting carried away with your countries importance! Do those 138 include the government that the US have destabilised in South America?
You are NOT defending Iraq, you INVADED it.
The US originally formed, supplied and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now it's blown up in your face.
Cuba does alright on its own.
WHO, exactly are you "defending"?
2007-07-21 08:09:19 · answer #4 · answered by mad_mick001 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. Our soldiers aren't being killed or suffering brain damage or lost limbs in all 138 nations that we're in--that's mainly just Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got a lot more reason for being in Afghanistan than Iraq.
In the other countries, our presence is part of a more complicated arrangement between us and them.
2007-07-21 04:53:01 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes i believe we should withdraw our military forces. One question we should ask our self. Would they come to our rescue if we called them. Some would but most would not. They take our protection for granted. Especially: Iraq and Kuwait. We are losing innocent soldiers lives for what? This war will continue to go on forever because the Iraqi people are not strong enough fight against the insurgency force. Too many corrupt Iraqi police and Army.
2007-07-21 08:52:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
We should leave them in place, but withdraw the finacial aid we send to most of the countries in the world. If there is a natural disaster somewhere, we'd actually have the money to help them when they need it instead of dole it out a bit at a time. How many wars would end if we quit financing one faction over another? They can't fight much with no money.
2007-07-21 04:59:56 · answer #7 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
USA troops are currently based in Australia but you aren't defending us, you've actually requested that your troops be based here at one of our Airforce bases on a permanent basis. I don't think you understand what it is your talking about. Obviously you are not in the military and don't understand just what it is that your troops are deployed to do in countries other than Iraq.
2007-07-21 05:30:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You are not in every country to defend it but use the countries as staging points to defend the USA.
2007-07-21 06:05:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, just from Iraq. We should not have been there in the first place. Bush just needed somewhere to use the bombs his company manufactures to make millions before he leaves office. If anything, we should have been helping Africa. They are crying out for help and are just being ignored. I guess no profit in helping them.
2007-07-21 05:07:49 · answer #10 · answered by gmoney 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋