Restraint

[yourbuttocks]

Since the end of the Gulf war the U.S. has been spending billions and billions to defend rich nations such as S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc.

This has bread resentment and been unfair to Americans, because it allows these countries to keep taxes lower than otherwise they would have to to defend ourselves.

They don’t need America.

The U.S. isn’t the world’s policeman.

So I say we pull back our troops and our nuclear shields and carrier fleets.

Want an example, check out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09SAUD.html?ex=1045458000&en=10f57fa725a1f4de&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[cystic crypt]

I think i agree with you overall YB. At least when it applies to wealthier nations able to help themselves (unless they explicitly request help owing to the fact that some nations take wealth possibly earmarked for keeping their countrymen from dying and putting it into military spending . . .). The US is capable of a lot of good, however times change and as they do, so should US policy, otherwise their troops become anachronistic in many situations, and once-appropriate gratitude turns into rudeness, etc. Besides, there are other organizations that may pick up the slack without the appearance of a secondary gain that America is often accused of (Nato, UN, etc.)

[Yanny]

The US isn’t “defending” Germany. Those troops are leftovers from the Cold War, ment to fight the Soviets.

First off, if a country wants our troops to leave, the troops should be sent home that week. So, the troops in Germany and Saudi Arabia should pull out.

[Xi]

AGREED! cept fer the carriers! I think it’s good to be able to project our power where we need it quickly. Also to protect the freedom of our civilian transports and cruise ships.

[DeviantScripter]

I agree with XI. We should pull troops out of “certain” countries, however I do think it’s neccessary to be able to wage military action at a moments notice, anywhere in the world. Therefore, I do believe we need to maintain airbases and naval fleets in strategic points around the globe. We can’t predict what will happen in the future, but we do need to be prepared for it. Soldiers can always be flown in later…

I’m not sure what you mean by nuclear “shield”… :-?

[Xi]

OhmygodohmygodOHMYGOD!

Somebody agrees/agreed with me!

D:S, are you sicker sumthin? :P

–---------------------------------------

Hold on.
I gotta write this on my calendar.

[don_riggins]

military ships to protect cruise vessels? did i understand u right? do u have any idea how badly that would hurt that industry if it had to have armed escorts w/ em everywhere. people go on cruises to relax, not look out and see small military ships guarding em

[yourbuttocks]

I’m talking about dismantling NATO. Why was America invovled in Bosnia? Couldn’t The French, Italians, Spanish, British of handled it?

HOwabout we will intervene in acts of aggression/genocide/etc. in North America. Other continents can handle themselves.

The idea that we need these troops and bases to protect oil/etc. is stupid. We need to become more self-sufficient, not protect imperialism.

If we feel guilty wee can increase the foreign aid budget with some of the tens of billions we will save.

[Yanny]

YB,

What advantage would it be for us to pull out of Nato? Nato is the strongest alliance the world has ever known.

Bosnia, yes the European powers could of handled it themselves. But they would of had a harder time doing it. Same with the war on terror. Without Nato, we could still make progress, but any victory will be much more costly.

A War in Iraq is an offensive war. Regardless whether it is Pre-emptive, or whether Iraq is a legitimate threat. Nato’s charter specifically warns against offensive wars.

The Europeans learned their lessons from Imperialism. I am begining to think America has not.

[yourbuttocks]

lets see NATO- U.S. spends tens of billions a year to defend Western Europe from a country which no longer exists…

[Yanny]

So, we can’t get rid of the troops in Germany (110,000 troops) without pulling out of Nato?

[Xi]

@don_riggins:

military ships to protect cruise vessels? did i understand u right?

Oh, Puleez! NOBODY’s talking escort, just in the vicinity for PRESENCE.

I see Y_B_'s point, but I believe we ought to reconsider how NATO is tructured and used. When regions are left to decide if they can handle a problem themselves or request help. European forces would get a little more experience and the USians( :) ) wouldn’t be so quick to complain about carrying the load.

[Xi]

Besides, that would leave us more $ to
imperialize :roll: and colonize :wink: Africa and S. America :evil: !

[yourbuttocks]

We no longer have any reason to be in NATO. Give a good reason for us to stay in it.

[Yanny]

Because the future is uncertain. Its hard to remake an alliance that took so much to put together in the first place.

[Xi]

Keep your friends and try to make more. Who knows what benefits will come from networking? 8)

[TG Moses VI]

Because the future is uncertain. Its hard to remake an alliance that took so much to put together in the first place.

I think it was George Washington who cautioned us to stay out of entangling alliances?

[Yanny]

I think it was George Washington who cautioned us to stay out of entangling alliances?

Yes, he did. NATO however is different. NATO provides an open forum for 26 countries, which is less entangling and capable of more action than the United Nations. I believe we should expand it as much as possible, even adding Russia into the organization.

[TG Moses VI]

So instead of entangling allainces you prefer US-dominated alliances ?

Or no alliances at all - if I ever suggested any such “US-dominated alliances.”

Yes, he did. NATO however is different. NATO provides an open forum for 26 countries, which is less entangling and capable of more action than the United Nations.

Less entangling as in? Yes… my history is dumb… :oops:

[Yanny]

Well, what Washington was really warning against was an involvement in the affairs of Europe. At the time, we were a young, weak nation who barely pulled through a war. France and Britain both tried to absorb us into their own alliances. Washington warned against a conflict with Britain, as we might not win a second war with them. He also warned that an alliance with France would lead to a conflict with Britain. Many of his supporters were in favor of an alliance with Britain, though Jefferson and others warned that this would lead to British domination of the Americas, us becoming a colony once again.