No troops anywhere, no humanitarian aid, no disaster relief. We just worry about America, and Americans. No amnesty, no support to/for the United Nations .
What do you think?
2007-09-25 07:35:56 · 17 answers · asked by Supercell 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting Idea, If we kept to it on a strict basis.
No aid for countries hit by disater. No aids medication or relief money. What would they say then.
you know During WW2 before our entry into the war we were scolded for being isolationist now we are scolded for being too pro active.
The problem is that we will be wrong in someone's eye's no matter what we do.
People want the US to do what they want them to do. If the situation fits their cause we need to send troops and money if not then just money.
2007-09-25 07:50:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should certainly remove troops from everywhere in the middle east (especially Saudi Arabia - having them there got you into the whole "terrorist" debacle in the first place).
As regards your other comments the US rarely supports the UN (ignored it completely to get Halliburton into Iraq) as for Amnesty that got totally left out at Guantanamo Bay. The humanitarian aid and disaster relief is invariably sponsered by countries around the globe and cash donations that also include citizens of the US not just the US army.
2007-09-25 07:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Holli, i comprehend that bringing the troops abode earlier the recent Iraqi government can defend the rustic and has some stability, means that we, individuals, are losers working abode with tail between legs. that's not who i'm, not your loved ones the two. whilst the Democrats decrease the investment for South Vietnam, our troops have been abode over a year. South Vietnam grow to be over-run via the Communist North. It grow to be a massacre there, with our former allies being killed. The violence unfold from Vietnam to Laos and into Cambodia. bear in recommendations Pol Pot? Our "peace'' occasion led to that genocide. they have blood throughout themselves in my eyes. I quite have watched Lebanon be invaded and ravaged too. do you already know that the Marines that have been there in Beirut had to disarm on the gate? They have been disarmed and could not guard themselves
2016-12-28 03:03:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America 6% of GDP on defense and less than 1% on aid. This buys us special status and increases our geopolitical opportunities.
If we were to shrink from the world, our economy would shrink, there would be a power vacuum and we would b burning a lot more coal as we walked to work.
2007-09-25 07:43:17 · answer #4 · answered by Mark P 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Winston Churchill once drew a map for the… “people” who were claiming that we should just leave Hitler alone. He showed the UK as an island in a sea of Nazism. Isolationism would allow the evils of the world to spread and there would eventually be no West to defend.
Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
2007-09-25 07:44:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think if we somehow needed to invade or attack a country on the other side of the planet, we would have a terrible time doing so without troops close by.
2007-09-25 07:48:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The US uses its military to prop up subject governments throughout the world and to intimidate others into allowing us access to their raw materials and markets, as well as intimidating our competitors. Our empire would need to start declining before any of our foreign legions would return home.
2007-09-25 07:47:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is one extreme -- and committing 50% of our armed forces to extended overseas activity is another extreme.
The balance is somewhere in between -- where we have established military bases, especially where the duty is primarily to be ready response in case of emergency -- that is completely different than an extended occupation of a hostile territory.
Thus, for our own security -- it is useful to have overseas bases in allied countries -- Germany, Okinawa, England, Turkey, as well as mobile bases in the form of carriers -- in case we need to put forces into action quickly.
That being said -- we should concentrate most of our efforts and resources to solve our own problems -- and I generally oppose most foreign aid, except in the form of short term loans for disaster relief.
2007-09-25 07:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's possible, but not probable.
Should? I wouldn't go that far extreme. But what we have now isn't sustainable either. US is stretched too thin militarily and economically.
Dramatic reductions, however, are in order, but not total withdrawal - that would be unlikely to happen.
2007-09-25 07:57:37 · answer #9 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a lose/lose situation.
If we stay in a war that is good for the world they hate us as occupiers.
If we protect our own borders, they hate us as selfish.
We might as well just continue with what we know is right and drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming into a future that is actually fair for all and end Sharia Law and Socialism/Communism.
2007-09-25 07:41:44 · answer #10 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋