That our troops EVERYWHERE need to come home? He says that a presence of the navy next to Iran is provoking, as well as a presence in the persian gulf. He believe that troops remaining in Germany and elsewhere should come home. Do you agree?
2007-07-26 07:58:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
they will still be our allies
2007-07-26 08:05:24 · update #1
Kevorkian, he actually addressed the statement you just made about isolationism...he isn't talking about cutting off trade, travel, or anything else. Just not occupying other people's countries with our troops.
2007-07-26 08:13:30 · update #2
Yes I do. Unless that government and the people of that country WANT us there. By spreading our troops everywhere we have provoked the world to dislike us; therefore making us a target.
2007-07-26 08:12:33 · answer #1 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I do agree with Ron Paul on that issue. I think he is right on the money with that. My God, the people's lives we could save if we left Iraq. And, the money we could save as well if we pulled out of Iraq and brought our troops around the world home. It would be the wisest thing and best thing we could do for our country. There is no need for our military to be around the world because there is no Soviet Union or COUNTRY that is a threat. That's presumeably why we had so many troops around the world in the first place.
2007-07-26 08:06:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. That is not a good idea. The presence of our troops around the globe creates stability. That was the error after WWI, not having a large neutral force stationed in Europe.
Up until the end of WWII, Europe was a worse trouble spot than the Middle East. Europe dragged the world into conflict over and over again.
Stationing 200,000 US troops in Germany for 40 years settled the area. Peoples in Europe now settle their differences without taking up arms. The world is a better place as a result.
2007-07-26 08:08:47 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree about the Navy presence in the Persian Gulf, but if the US removed all its troops from foreign bases, it would create power vacuums and unintended, often unpredictable consequences.
2007-07-26 08:06:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
We can use the troops for boarder and port of entry security.
Wecome back Heidi good to see you again.
2007-07-26 08:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Japan, Germany and South Korea do NOT depend on us. This isn't 1957.
2007-07-26 08:09:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
He is a smart man who no one is paying attention to because ack
He is a Constitutionalist!!! dramatic music dun dun dun
Yes thats right you remember the constitution dont ya that document that our country was founded on
Eekk are you saying he would govern based on the constitution?
Why yes I am
What can I do as an American to prevent this evil constitution?
Well there is only one thing you can do to prevent rule by the constitution and thats ....vote hillary
2007-07-26 08:03:40 · answer #7 · answered by scottfreefunny 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Not on this specific issue but Ron is OK, he supports our right to bear arms and isn't all bad. He is a strict constitutionalist and supports the patriot movement so he is OK by me.
2007-07-26 08:03:33 · answer #8 · answered by Colter B 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we should bring all our troops home and leave them in the countries who have requested it and that our congress approves of.
2007-07-26 08:03:04 · answer #9 · answered by jeb black 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No. I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not that much of an isolationist.
2007-07-26 08:06:11 · answer #10 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋