Should the US get out of other countries?

reply to post by nunya13


I totally agree with you. 'sickening' is exactly the word. Thank you for going some way to restore my faith in the US citizen in the street.

PS I decided to remove the name of that xenophobic poster in case I got into trouble with the mods.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Nice to see you too!

Yes, I couldn't resist the swipe at Obama, forgive me

I still stand by my statement though, that we are a stabilizing factor in the world.

Just my humble, meager, insignificant, opinion. . . .

sharps
Should the US military get their military personnel out of other countries?

Yes.

"I am so sick of other countries people commenting on our country.If it was up to me i would ban anyone not from here posting their comment."

Are you a US citizen who agrees with this statement?

No.

It is the perspective of the wolfpack. "We are good. They are bad." "Anyone who agrees with us is good. Anyone who disagrees with us is bad." "When we kill and eat our prey it is good." "When others kill and eat us they are evil."

mikerussellus
Our presence is one of the reasons the world has remained as stable as it is.
We are a super power.

And I suppose if you were to install video cameras in the bedrooms of your neighbors, fewer of them would beat their wives. Nevertheless, it would be a great burden and expense for you to attempt it, and it would probably generate a lot of resentment for you.

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

So, what if we, the "rest of the world" decided that America was a country that posed a risk to our safety, our independance and our sovereignty?

What if the rest of the world decided to collectively start a 'war on terror' against America?

That would be fun to watch

[edit on 10-9-2009 by noonebutme]

They would certainly have that right. I don't agree with all foreign policies. But America is a stabilizing factor.
Just sayin'

Originally posted by I think Im normal
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

That may be the case, the world would be hurt, but our government was not put in place to police the world now was it. I say pull the troops, let the world see what happens.

Three things will happen;

1) The world sees that they are better off with us there.
2) The world sees that they don't need us there.
3) The world collapses and we start over.


The tax payers money could and should be better spent aiding the states in need FIRST. I don't pay taxes so that I can build up a country that hates my existence, but unfortunately I do, now don't I?

Sure. We could give it a shot. See what happens. But we'd be talking about human lives here. Risky, if you ask me.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by shamhat

 

Again, I can only speculate. I do feel that we supply a "stabilizing" force in the world. For those that truely want us out, their collective governments can do that.

Trouble is the collective governments won't because how the world appears to work on the surface bears no resembance with reality.

Originally posted by LordBucket
And I suppose if you were to install video cameras in the bedrooms of your neighbors, fewer of them would beat their wives. Nevertheless, it would be a great burden and expense for you to attempt it, and it would probably generate a lot of resentment for you.

Especially, when it turns out you're laying out the law to everyone else, then pulling down the blinds and knocking seven bales out of your own wife.

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by sharps

 

But at the end of the day, it has to be said that the US is just one of many NWO/Illuminati tools, a 'multitool' to be used to do what they wish, destabilise, protect, destroy.

Just my humble opinion.

I totally agree, but with the worlds militaries called home there would be no real justification for the size and expense of the US military (and those of other countries) and as a result it would be reduced in size scope and capability thereby robbing the NWO of the use of force.

Originally posted by sharps
Should the US military get their military personnel out of other countries?

You do know that each notation on that list does not necessarily refer to a US base, right? I'm guessing that the figures would include a detachment of Marines on embassy duty, that sort of thing. And totally acceptable, even to a pinko like me.

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by I think Im normal
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

That may be the case, the world would be hurt, but our government was not put in place to police the world now was it. I say pull the troops, let the world see what happens.

Three things will happen;

1) The world sees that they are better off with us there.
2) The world sees that they don't need us there.
3) The world collapses and we start over.


The tax payers money could and should be better spent aiding the states in need FIRST. I don't pay taxes so that I can build up a country that hates my existence, but unfortunately I do, now don't I?

Sure. We could give it a shot. See what happens. But we'd be talking about human lives here. Risky, if you ask me.

How many lives are lost due to the US being in said countries, is not our presence in other countries the reason the hate and terror groups are active? Would this not in the end essentially save lives? Stop that hate?

Or do you feel that by our presence in other countries is stopping this whatsoever?

Do you think that if we just minded our own business that we would be a target? I guess you could say so if you look back to Pearl Harbor, but I am willing to bet that they would not likely occur seeing how that was handled the last time.

Back later to see how this conversation is going. good stuff so far.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by I think Im normal]

reply to post by stevegmu


Yes I know. I deliberately excluded the private philanthropy figures because being the largest economy on the planet and having the highest number of billionaires it would be a pretty sick situation if some of the citizens of the US weren't the most generous donaters. Don't you think?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Yep they are not all active troops but they are all military personnel and I feel the point is still valid. Even if you were to ignore military personnel you still have 800+ military bases which is just as scary IMO.

First, I want to be sure that all those countries on your list do not include military personnel used in US Embassies. Technically, that does not count and is American soil. That probably knocks many nations off.

Second, most nations on that list allow US to station troops inside. That and our NATO and other allies again knock off many countries.

Of the few left, we have military personnel on civil services, building bridges and such.

--Basically, remove all nations that give the US permission to have station troops and you have the below.

All thats left now are the countries that we have invaded/are at war with.

With that out of the way, I really don't care what somebody says about US, they can say what they want and I won't stop them.

Originally posted by I think Im normal

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by I think Im normal
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

That may be the case, the world would be hurt, but our government was not put in place to police the world now was it. I say pull the troops, let the world see what happens.

Three things will happen;

1) The world sees that they are better off with us there.
2) The world sees that they don't need us there.
3) The world collapses and we start over.


The tax payers money could and should be better spent aiding the states in need FIRST. I don't pay taxes so that I can build up a country that hates my existence, but unfortunately I do, now don't I?

Sure. We could give it a shot. See what happens. But we'd be talking about human lives here. Risky, if you ask me.

How many lives are lost due to the US being in said countries, is not our presence in other countries the reason the hate and terror groups are active? Would this not in the end essentially save lives? Stop that hate?

Or do you feel that by our presence in other countries is stopping this whatsoever?

Do you think that if we just minded our own business that we would be a target? I guess you could say so if you look back to Pearl Harbor, but I am willing to bet that they would not likely occur seeing how that was handled the last time.

Back later to see how this conversation is going. good stuff so far.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by I think Im normal]

Spot on mate.

I wonder about something. Is their any correlation with US citizens who have travelled the world, and those who have never left the country, and the views of 'yes we should get out and stop bullying the world', and 'no we are a stabilizing force for good'. I hope there isn't a causal link because that would reflect badly on US citizens.

JohnnyCanuck:
You do know that each notation on that list does not necessarily refer to a US base, right?

Ok...you want a list that only includes bases? No problem. Here's a list that includes a complete breakdown by service and function of base.

Or, as this summary succinctly phrases it:

Content from extrenal source:
The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737.

Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas

United States Constitution

"Do not get involved in Foreign Entanglements"

Enough said.

Originally posted by sharps
reply to post by stevegmu

 

Yes I know. I deliberately excluded the private philanthropy figures because being the largest economy on the planet and having the highest number of billionaires it would be a pretty sick situation if some of the citizens of the US weren't the most generous donaters. Don't you think?

No, not really. Most of the people in countries we throw money at hate us. Let them fend for themselves.

reply to post by fleetlord


I don't think 'permission' has any relevance because all the governments of the world are corrupted and cowtow to the 'apparent' US agenda. The list is not complete there are more than are on it. The lowest figure I've seen for active troops in bases is around 60 countries back in 2001. I think it's also very illuminating to see how many countries the US has intervened with or invaded in the last 100 years

academic.evergreen.edu...

Apparently the figure for the last 15 yrs is 75, although I can't confirm this as its late and I'm knackered.

Everyone has brought up good and valid points. I would like to think, being from the UK originally, that I have a somewhat unique perspective of this.

We used to call the yanks stationed in the UK, over paid, over sexed, and over here.

Then spending the last couple of decades in America, I tried to gain a different perspective.

Our troops over seas are there for a reason. Now, whether you agree with that reason or not is up for discussion. Some countries have invited us, others, we have defeated in wars and our presence there is a deterrent.

But to have a totally isolationist attitude towards this whole affair, I feel, will not only harm host countries, but ours as well.

Thank you.

-cheers-

reply to post by stevegmu


Fair enough we are all free to have our own opinions. I feel that the US has become rich by exploiting other nations, 'banana republics' spring to mind so its only natural that they should give back. If US imperialism had been stopped at the outset the world would be a much more healthy, prosperous and peaceful place and the shoe would be on the other foot. I also think the same is true of my country the UK.