Should the United State have it's troops in other countries?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

If you answer YES can you state your reasons as to why this is acceptable?

If you answer NO can you state what should be the role of US troops and what the Democratic Party should do in order to remove US troops from foreign soil?

[cali]

1. allowed? allowed by....?

I think you'd be better off re-phrasing this.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

2. Yeah probably so

I just threw it up there for general discussion without being too careful with the wording.

Maybe I'll amend it a bit.

What's your opinion on the overall gist of the query?

[cali]

6. I think we should

assess that question country by country, in conjunction with that particular country and others. In most cases, I'm opposed to U.S. troops being placed in other countries.

[Arctic Dave]

3. No. I could see after WWII the need for overseas bases

,but now, there really isn't true military reason for having them. We have ICBMs and transportation that is able to go global in hours.

[SpartanDem]

4. If their government is OK with it yes

I'm sure the South Koreans and Japanese don't mind us being around right now.

[vadawg]

17. yup agree with this comment, if the country they are being hosted in wants them

then i see no problem with having strategic assets throughout the world.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. What if that

government was installed?

Hey we could do a list of governments who were overthrown by the US and then cite how it is that the replacement gov't asked for the US to stay. Like a list of puppets eh?

Whadda ya' think. Might take a while.

[HP Lovecraft]

5. Yes

Yes, because the world needs a superpower(s) to keep order and the US is the most decent of the superpowers.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. Manifest Destiny?

:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

14. We are closer to being a second -world country than we are to being a superpower

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Pavulon]

19. Hit up La Paz , reset your standards.

american poor and developing world poor are very different. You can smell the difference.

[Horse with no Name]

22. I think you would like to think so

It makes it easier to sleep at night for some, I suppose.
In this country, in the good old US of A, people are hungry...many are malnourished, people are dying for lack of healthcare and medications and many of our neighbors are homeless and living in boxes under bridges.

There is an impoverished class beneath the ones that make the news. These aren't the ones who file for bankruptcy, have mortgages to lose or 401k's to worry about. They are the ones who fall through the cracks of society everyday and are ignored even by your rank comments about "smell".

Also, notice that I didn't say "third world" because we aren't "quite" there yet...but if status quo persists, I think we can add that to our resume in the next few years.

[WeDidIt]

7. Yes

The United States is a super power. Through treaty of mutual defense, the United States must maintain bases in other nations.

To fail to abide by the terms of existing treaties would violate US law and the US constitution. Therefore, the United States CANNOT unilaterally pull out of its treaty obligations.

[wuushew]

12. How about a link?

Show me where in the mutual defense pact with Japan the United States is obligated to maintain X number of tanks, ships and aircraft in Japan for perpetuity.

Since defense capability is entirlely subjective we should wisely argue that our numerous golf courses are the entirity of our presense in home islands.


Who cares if they protest, the treatly allows us to withdraw after giving one year notice.


I guess we need to be prepared to fight those Red Chinese or Godzilla. :sarcasm:

[jody]

8. I understand your intent but foreign policy drives U.S. military in other countries. Perhaps you

might revise your questions to focus on our foreign policy in individual countries, e.g. Colombia, Somalia.

[lunatica]

9. Yes and no, seriously

If a country is our ally and they're being threatened and ask for American troops then yes, as long as the mission is transparent and has an end date with achievable goals.

No if it means having permanent Military bases which are less than useless now just because we needed them before.

Troops yes, in limited circumstances and with a stated mission and temporary.

Military bases no.

[taterguy]

11. It's "its" damnit, "its"

Seriously, how difficult is it to learn to use an apostrophe?

And another thing, the answer is that US troops should be on foreign soil, until we're ready to do without the resources that they ensure we have access to.

How did you get to work today?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. Damn the grammar police are out

Do you now think you are superior?

How 'bout you 'n' me play us a game of scrabble.

I bicykled. And U?

So you support the various occupations of oil-rich lands?

[Horse with no Name]

16. When there is no substance to their argument

They always resort to the least common denominator.:rofl:

[taterguy]

23. I bicycled

:hide:

[Horse with no Name]

13. I see no good reason

and one swift executive order could get them back ASAP.

[G_j]

18. ideally, no

but we know that's not about to happen.

I think the military as a whole, needs to be scaled way down.
We don't need to be a "Superpower", and the time of our empire is waning anyway. It's over.

Our economic power has faded, I'm afraid many dinosaurs are relying on military power/money to maintain our collective superpower ego/s (and their own wealth)
We can't afford it, and we have new and far more pressing needs.

We need a different future.


"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795



````````
US Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld


Comparing US with others
In other words,

US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending

US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined

US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.

US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)

US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.

The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.

The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.


......


The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

[Mari333]

21. no.

the Dem party give up its corporate masters? good luck with that. the only one I see doing that is Kucinich.

[Dr Fate]

24. Can we afford it? Last time I checked, we were pretty broke.

And I wont be going anywhere, in any event.