NationStates Jolt Archive

I kid you not. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html)

Thank God the fucker stands no chance of winning.

Just for the record,

"U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object."

So, do you think we should bring the all US troops in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world home as well? Do we need troops in Korea, Japan, England, Germany, Spain, Bosnia, etc., etc?

He may be fine with it but do you think the troops will want to waste there lives in Iraq? A hundred years is a long time.

We must keep troops there to assure our hegemony over the Middle East!

American troops should be in America, defending the United States. If we need to engage in military conflict, so be it, but not as a permanent presence. It is not the US's duty to assume the world's defense burden; let them spend their own money to defend themselves, not expect the US to do it for them.

I would withdraw all US forces from the rest of the world over the next couple of decades and force these countries to defend themselves. It's not our duty to be the world's policeman, especially not when we get a ration of shit about it from the same people who gladly accept the money our military deployments provide. This does not mean isolationism, but rather a commitment to non-interventionism and change through diplomacy, with the military kept in well-equipped, well-rested fighting shape should it be needed. We should save our troops for the ultimate trump card rather than a pile of Risk pieces to deploy wherever the government feels necessary; otherwise, we're going to see it become overtaxed and worn down like we did in the aftermath of Vietnam.

It's not our duty to be the world's policeman, especially not when we get a ration of shit about it from the same people who gladly accept the money our military deployments provide.


If Japan is any example, which has to pay for the electricity and water US forces there use, I doubt they get much, if at all, any, money out of the deal.


We should save our troops for the ultimate trump card rather than a pile of Risk pieces to deploy wherever the government feels necessary; otherwise, we're going to see it become overtaxed and worn down like we did in the aftermath of Vietnam.

Ahhh, but how will the US ever be able to maintain its leanings on governments who sit on precious resources they want? Or contain governments which they feel have ideologies that are not sufficiently similar to theirs? Or even better yet, engage in military bickering with national powers where direct conflict is undesirable, yet a show of strength needed?

But don't worry. I do not claim the US to have a monopoly on this sort of behavior.

FACT: The US has, by far, the most powerful and best-equipped military force in the world.

FACT: US troops are deployed in many countries across the world. This, however, is tiring to the troops, expensive, and controversial.

HYPOTHESIS: The US would be able to save a good deal of the government budget, leading to lowered taxes and therefore economic growth, were the majority of these troops back home.

OPINION: The US should withdraw from most areas around the world not its possessions. However, it should also come use its large military forces (including strategic and unconventional weapons) as a deterrent. In situations where the US formerly would have gone to war, it should now use diplomacy backed up by the threat of military action. The latter should in turn be a last resort, and should be used sparingly but as effectively as possible.

FACT: Global opinion of the US military has diminished since its involvement in the Iraq war.

OPINION: Well, shit.

I would withdraw all US forces from the rest of the world over the next couple of decades and force these countries to defend themselves. It's not our duty to be the world's policeman, especially not when we get a ration of shit about it from the same people who gladly accept the money our military deployments provide. This does not mean isolationism, but rather a commitment to non-interventionism and change through diplomacy, with the military kept in well-equipped, well-rested fighting shape should it be needed.

true, but as a short term measure you could remove all the troops in peaceful countries, like japan and germany and move them to afganistan where they are actually needed, :)

Hey, at least he's being realistic about the whole affair.

Either you leave now and get some kind of horrible Rwanda-type situation going on, or you stay for about 100 years until people are used to living under martial law, generation after generation, and then job's a good 'un. See also Afghanistan.

So, do you think we should bring the all US troops in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world home as well?

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

Some of those bases support our Navy and Air Force that could not deploy to trouble spots without them. Some of those bases also support UN and NATO missions. Some of those bases contain pre-positioned supplies and equipment that can support those missions. What you are calling for is isolationism which would not work.

What you are calling for is isolationism which would not work.

Wrong.

I am calling for non-interventionism, not isolationism. I want us to stop policing the world, not stop interacting with it altogether. I support diplomatic relations with all countries, free trade with all countries, cultural exchanges with all countries, complete freedom of travel between countries, etc., whereas an isolationist would favor autarky, little to no diplomatic ties with the outside world, closed borders, etc.

The closest examples to isolationism would be Japan prior to Matthew Perry's visit, Albania under Enver Hoxha in the late 1970s-early 1980s (after Albania's relations with the PRC soured), and, to a lesser extent, Myanmar, Bhutan, and North Korea.

Look at Sweden and Switzerland. Both have pursued non-aligned, (mostly) non-interventionist foreign policies (although Sweden does participate in peacekeeping missions as well as the ISAF), and have not fought any wars for almost two hundred years. And when was the last time you heard of Bhutan or Ghana (a country whose foreign policy is based on peaceful relations with all countries, regardless of ideology) going to war with anybody?

true, but as a short term measure you could remove all the troops in peaceful countries, like japan and germany and move them to afganistan where they are actually needed, :)

That too.

Thread title is really bad. It takes McCain's statement WAY out of context.

I wish we will pull out of Iraq, my uncle was wounded in Iraq.

America has spent like half a trillion dollars on Iraq I hear, is this true?