We need to bring all of our troops home. We are a republic
not an empire.
2007-12-26
11:18:23
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
RTO trainer ,I do know what the definition of empire is.You should not
disparage people whom are not
warmongers.You really do believe
that there is a logical rationale to have
our troops stationed around the globe.
Woofywaffle,I do understand the miltary.
The question that I asked was asked
,because I am a pacifist.
2007-12-26
16:33:38 ·
update #1
RTO trainer,you think that I do not pay
attention to world events.Go back to your cave you troglodyte. Civilized
nations do not station troops all over the world.
2007-12-26
16:39:49 ·
update #2
I agree with you. We need to stop sticking our noses in where it doesn't belong, & bring all of our troops home.
2007-12-26 11:21:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Shortstuff13 7
·
5⤊
4⤋
The Roman Republic conquered more foreign territory than the Roman Empire. The terms define electoral policy, not foreign policy.
We happen to be the most powerful nation on earth and have troops (sometimes only a few) in over 108 countries. Sometimes we save the day. More often, we get ourselves into trouble and are universally hated for it.
That being said, after conquering the continent from sea to shining sea, American foreign policy has alternated between wanting to be a European style imperialism and xenophobic anti-interventionism. What we are good at is going in with overwhelming force. Not establishing colonies. The British were far better at that because, unlike Americans, they actually LIKE to live in foreign countries.
We were late getting into WWI and WWII and we were late getting out of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Although I really did not agree with the intervention in Kosovo, and think we should have prevented the Rwandan genocide, I am glad that Clinton cut and ran when he saw that we could do not good in Somalia. We could still be there had he not.
My solution is to recognize our limited attention span and never intervene without a UN approved plan and international support. It is not too late. We can get an international peacekeeping force in Iraq if we will only recognize our limitations and know when to ask for help on internationally agreeable terms (not try to demand it on our own terms)
2007-12-26 11:43:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by BruceN 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
This would then turn into a draft like they did in viet nam. Which I would promptly show them my Social Security retirement check, Medicare medical cards; permanent Disability knee report, my discharge papers from the marine corps; my partial loss of hearing and vision; my "I can't stand ALL lying politicians" card, my disconnected receipt from cable TV because I hate Fox, CNN and MSNBC news stations with pencil neck pin striped suit commentators and pretty blond know it all-I am better than thou white barbies; a big box of newspapers I use for my dogs to relieve on and not read and my one way airline ticket to south America ready when Hillery, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee wins the presidency and most of all words from a great God " love your enemies, do good to them that hate you,bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you".
The Roman Empire is back! And it was also a Republic.
2007-12-26 15:50:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by soprano 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The freedom that you are enjoying in the States is possible by having bases throughout the world.. We gather intellegent and movement of countries that are a threat to us.
I know the 911 was a lack of intelligent data but imaging if we are only confined to the U.S.A. and we just stand here and wait for what is going to come to us...
It has not been an invation to the US since the spanish american war...
I agreed with bringing our troops home...but our bases overseas should remain at post and so our military present in the world
2007-12-26 11:43:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Burt 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
The asker obviously isn't aware that the word "empire" has a specific definition.
He's also not been paying much attention to current events, and not so current at that.
Most troops are being brought back to the US. Formerly, we had to forward deploy large formations so they could respond quickly enough in the event of an emergency.
Recent (the last 5 years) changes in the force structure and in logistics as well as overall increase in lethality of smaller formations has made such forward deploymetn less necessary.
This is the reason that every Army post in the US is undergoing major building programs; to house the inbound troops.
When these movements are complete, the forward deployed Infantry/Armor elements of the US Army will be the 172nd Infantry (Airborne) in Italy, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany and 1st Brigade 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.
2007-12-26 11:37:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by RTO Trainer 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
We (service people) are protecting our interests. We are competing with other countries for the same resources and goods and therefore must have some type of security to ensure the goods get to our destination. Imagine no military in the vast pacific. Pirates, Guerillas, Warlords, OTHER COUNTRIES would eventually steal all the goods.
Think of the convenience store in your neighborhood that is frequented by cops. Does the store get robbed much? Probably not.
2007-12-26 14:33:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by bbfg99999 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Interesting question. The United States of America is a G8 nation and as a G8 nation it must lead the world. American troops are stationed all over the world not to provoke wars or fight them but to peace keep and generally protect and serve the less fortunate in the world. I do agree with you. American troops should be brought home but keep in mind, the troops stationed around the world are volunteers. They knew what they were getting into and in most cases they want to help the 3rd world and it was their choice to join the military. If America, Canada, Britain, France and other fortunate nations did not help these 3rd world nations who would? Who can?
2007-12-26 11:25:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kevin T 2
·
4⤊
4⤋
We need small contingents of troops everywhere. That way if we are attacked there is a chance we have troops close to whom ever attacked us and can retaliate quicker. Makes sense to people with a little sense so liberals dont get it.
2007-12-26 12:03:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
And chances are world trading would stop.
So hey, will you help restore freedom in our country? "F*** You, we have our own country to worry about"
I dont really think that would go over to well. And obviously if you feel the need to ask a question like this, you really dont understand the military, your just asking a question because it sounds good, or its what someone else told you.
2007-12-26 11:27:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by woofywaffles 3
·
3⤊
4⤋
Sure, someone else should be there, I'd bet 99% of the people who feel that way haven't and will never serve in the military.
2007-12-26 11:22:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by madjer21755 5
·
5⤊
3⤋