From my conclusions to a previous question I have to ask this one... is this what Democrats think (details)?

Question

That if every American troop or embassy did not exist in other countries (like if we left and had absolutely no presence there) then would the World would be a joyous, happy, loving, wonderful and caring place? and we would all love each other and sing songs while holding hands and dancing in a circle? Seriously though, no name calling (either side), just a serious answer... If America had no presence in other countries, would the world be at Peace? once again, dont act like 5 year olds and name call.... PLEASE!

coragryph it wasn't the leaders, it was the answerers on here, blaming America

trunkster, i have no time to read all that! sum it up for me! :)

WHAT - what? how did I name call? democrat? why is that a bad thing? you should be proud of that shouldn't you? and i directed it to democrats because of a previous question, kind of as a follow up. don't get your panties in a bunch!

honest american, you are a typical liberal. can't answer the question, avoid it. i asked a serious question, i REALLY want to know if this is how you think! i thought i was being pretty polite. it seems most of your comrades could answer the question, but for some reason you can't... interesting. you must be the 5 year old! i was saying no name calling to both sides, dont you get that? dont answer my questoins if you just want to answer them with insults

Kelly B honey, i was only joking about that part. (that's why i said SERIOUSLY after it) can't we have a little fun here? obviously not

Answer 1

i think that some democrats have a vague sense of that or something similar happening if we were to completely withdraw all our authority and power (military or otherwise). i also believe that a majority of democrats who have some semblance of realism (yeah i know it's a pretty rare trait in libs these days) understand that some presence is vital in some areas. the really, really smart ones (about one in 3 or 4 million or so) understand that in some parts of the world, a U.S. presence is the only thing standing between a precarious but relative peace and outright, homo(sometimes geno-)cidal anarchy. as much as i wish we could stop being an international stabilization force and we could all sing kumbaya beneath the stars and pass the peace pipe, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. in the meantime, i think we're morally obligated to enforce peace and order whenever and wherever we're capable

Answer 2

You want a serious answer but ask a frivolously worded question.

No one ever said that the world would be holding hands or any of that nonsense.

How would Americans feel with a permanent Chinese or Russian military presence in the U.S.??

Whether you want to admit this or not the U.S. is an Imperialistic country. Even though it's more loosely structured and many times more diplomatically and economically enforced than in Empires past we still do have a military presence in too many nations around the world.

Why don't we fix our own country's problems and then worry about the other nations of the world.

This militarized presence in other nations of the world IS causing resentment and provoking radicals into attacking us.

Can you really not see that we along with other nations like the U.K. are trying to accomplish an economic take over of the world's economy and governments?

NAFTA, WTO, World Banks, Operation Ajax (where the U.S. deposed Iran's democratically elected leader)...all of these things illustrate this movement.

Radical fundamentalist people will always exist. They can be found in Christianity, Judaism, Muslim and other religions of the world. It's up to the people of each nation to control their crazies!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace!"--Jimi Hendrix

Answer 3

Peace? NO. NO way.
Don't get me wrong. I am an isolationist so I am in favor of the idea but, there will be no peace.

Japan will rearm.
North Korea will invade the south.
Vietnam will invade Cambodia.
China will make Taiwan it's 23rd province.
Russia will move to consolidate it's former client states with the threats of gas shortages.
India and Pakistan will finish up on the Kashmir question.
Iran will invade Iraq and restablish Persia under Islamic law and then it's on to Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia will try to intervene but without US help, it's army deserts.
Israel? Poof!
The suez canal will close again.
Persian Gulf? No longer navigible.
Syria assimilates Lebanon.
Australia engages China in East Timor and the Solomons regretting that they sold them Uranium.
Hugo Chavez invades Chile.
All of southern Africa comes under Chinese control.
Europe at war with itself again.
Turkey invades Kurdistan and gives the Iranians a two front war.
England has no choice but to isolate like the US.

I could go on and on and on.

Once the dust settles, the US deals with the last man standing.

Answer 4

Forging diplomatic relations (embassies) and the permanent presense of military bases are two separate issues.

Only a complete isolationist would advocate the removal of all American entities from foreign soil. On the contrary, most Dems and liberals actually advocate opening up and furthering diplomatic relations rather than resorting to military action as the primary means to resolving international conflict.

Regarding US military presense, you blindly assume that such permanent presense around the world somehow makes the world safer. In reality, US military presense has actually created more instability in some parts of the world (Middle East comes to mind). This presense tends to lead to resentment amongst the local population as it creates the image of their leaders handing over their national sovereignty to a foreign power.

Answer 5

sometimes i wonder. go to youtube, and type in, why we fight. this is a morality issue, not political. you cant believe all you see and all you read. the american oil industry is one of the biggest problems we face. the gasoline engine has been obsolete for over 50 yrs. why do we still depend on it? i used to think lyndon johnson was the worst president we ever had, then came bush. i am affiliated with no party, so theres no prejudice. the world will never be at peace, it never has. except for financial interests, we would not be in most of those countries. if we would not be there, the world would be in a better place. we would spend the billions of dollars on us, not someone else. people work hard all their lives, just to see their social security spent on oil interests, and thats all it is. maybe someday people will wake up. prove me wrong.

Answer 6

No - the world would not be at peace... however we would have a clear conscience and start to take steps to being a responsible nation. Just because you can control the world doesn't mean you should... and it isn't our place to be in other countries. We feel it is the army's job to protect America - not to invade.

And I am not sure of any liberal that said we should have NO force or presence in another country.... but rather to have discretion where we send the troops and why.

Answer 7

The world would still be in conflict, yes, but the question comes down to does America make things better of worst in other countries.
They have a history of making things worst, usually going after what benefits America with no regards to the host country

Answer 8

Please quit acting like a spoiled little 5 year old and ask an intelligent question!It is people like you who degraded what this country once stood for freedom and justice!Instead of discussing real issues you make petty immature attacks on anyone who doesn't share your enlightened opinion!

Answer 9

I think that they do believe that. They do seem to think that you deal with an irrational tyrrant by giving them nuclear technology and making them promise not to make bombs as well. It is an interesting mindset

Answer 10

No -- not only would that not solve the problem -- but I've never heard any Democratic leader say anything remotely like that.

Isolationism has never worked -- not in the past, and certainly not in the current interlocked global economy.

The solution is not withdrawing all contact with the world around is -- it's changing how we interact with the world.