Should the US get out of other countries?

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

Ok so this line in a post in the Debtors Revolt thread really got my goat up. I'm fed up of this attitude.

"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?

Surely in the interests of impartiality that would mean that US citizens should not comment on other countries stories and threads. However Earthship posts about non US threads. I argue that the US is such a big power that we all have a vested interest in what goes on there. The world has never seen such a militaristic and interventionist nation.

I hereby pledge that when the US calls back their military from the estimated 150 countries in which they are present I will stop commenting on US subjects.

en.wikipedia.org...

How would all the US ATSers feel if every country in which it had troops, had a reciprocal arrangement. How would that make you feel with 150 countries and many more bases on your soil?

Just some of the countries and territories the US admits to having military personnel in:-

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Antigua
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’Ivoire
Cuba (Guantanamo)
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Diego Garcia
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Helena
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

to name but a few.

Isn't it about time for some reciprocity?

other sources of info:-

geekpolitics.com...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.alternet.org...
www.ppu.org.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www.pbs.org...
[edit on 10-9-2009 by sharps]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by sharps]

[edit on 10-9-2009 by sharps]

reply to post by sharps


Yes we should... pull out of other nations and use the miltary for what the are supposed to be used for.. Border Defense

Hmmm...isn't that like ALL of the countries?

Yeah, Americans should get the hell out of any other country except their own.

To heck with the rest of the world.

reply to post by sharps



Sure. Let's let the rest of the world just go to hell.

We'll be safe, right?

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by sharps

 

Sure. Let's let the rest of the world just go to hell.

We'll be safe, right?

Why not? they send 200 billion dollars in aid to other countries and that was recently, yet California is bankrupt and selling off government supplies to stay afloat. Seems the priorities are back asswords. Since when was tax payers money here in the states meant to aid other countries? A little off topic, but hell yes pull out of other countries, it seems that they don't want the US there in the first place, and I would say 75 to 85% of the US citizens agree with them.

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]

reply to post by I think Im normal


Our presence is one of the reasons the world has remained as stable as it is.
We are a super power. The only one left.
When we become a third world nation (see Obama's plan for the future) then we can bring everyone back to keep control of the food lines and the riots that will occur.

I don't believe the world would go to hell without US military everywhere. I think that's one of the reasons why it is in such a state as it is. Also just think of the money that would be saved, the US military budget is astonishing, and its only lining the pockets of the elites and not so elite rumsfelds and Cheneys. There's been no excuse for foreign military presence in other countries since the end of WW2.

I reckon if there had been lots of foreign bases on US soil since 1945 you wouldn't be facing the erosion of civil liberties and police state that you are. However, I have to admit there is an argument that foreign troops would find it easier to shoot US citizens than US troops would. But even so that argument goes both ways and US troops would be more likely to shoot foreign nationals in their own countries. Maybe that's part of the agenda for further down the road. Having a US presence everywhere taking orders to shoot upon citizens of other countries when they rise up against tyranny or god forbid refuse a swine flu vaccine.

I think the world would be much safer if the US got out. In such a situation the US foreign policy would not cause the grievances that ultimately lead to terrorism.

I personally feel that we are spending WAY too much money to operate bases in other countries. Do we really need hundreds of military bases worldwide to keep an eye on things?

I would prefer that we took a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs for the most part, maybe a handful of bases in strategic locations for emergency purposes and call it a DAY. We could likely save hundreds of millions to billions a year just by keeping alot of the troops and equipment at home.

Isolate ourselves a bit, focus on exporting more manufactured goods like we have in the past when we were in our prime, and only import the goods that we need.

Off topic, but I wish I could punch Clinton in the face for NAFTA.

I saw that comment today, too. It got my goat also!

I'm in the US and I say to you that you can comment on any US matter if you want. I honestly don't give a dang what you say. Whether you agree or not. It's your right. I, so far, haven't read or heard of some kind of unspoken rule that says countries should not comment on the affairs of other countries.

To be brutally honest, people have the right to speak about the US more than any other country no matter what country they are in. It's kind of like whan people say that a celebrity should expect the attention they get since they put themselves in the spotlight.

Well, the US has put themselves in the spotlight ever since our inception. And in more current history we've gone throughout the world and stuck our noses in everybody else's business to the point of invading and occupying other countries. We deserve to be scrutinized by others.

On the topic of how many countries the US now occupies, let alone that we even do it at all...

It's really sickening to see that list. It really, really is. I couldn't imagine for ONE INSTANT if another country had their military running around dictating how things should be run. I don't give a crap if the SAY it's for our own protection or not. They have no right.

After I saw that list it hit me that we really are out to control the world, aren't we?

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?

reply to post by I think Im normal


Actually as a percentage of GDP, charitable funds given by the US to other nations only puts the US in 23rd place. So as a share of the charitable load as it were the US gets off lightly.

en.wikipedia.org...

However if you are talking about whether or not such donations should be made in the first place I have some sympathy for your position. But we should not forget the US economic policy which has often been the cause of poor countries needing help. Naomi Klien does a great job of discussing the Chicago school and all the wrongs they have done to the world in 'Shock Doctrine'.

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

 

Our presence is one of the reasons the world has remained as stable as it is.
We are a super power. The only one left.
When we become a third world nation (see Obama's plan for the future) then we can bring everyone back to keep control of the food lines and the riots that will occur.

Being a 'super power' is nothing to be proud of. Have you seen how much your country expends in terms of finances and resources on military activity overseas? Your backyard is a #hole as you point out. Perhaps it is time we all, UK most definately included, tended to our own problems instead of looking over the fence and telling everyone else what they are doing wrong.

And, how you can even to begin to reason that the US represents a stabilising force is quite beyond me. Your rose tinted spectacles must be like bottle bottoms

reply to post by sharps


I think the issue really isn't black or white.

There are countries that would benefit from US forces leaving, there are nations that would fall to pieces if they left, there are countries that would be rogue states if the US had no presence.

It's hard to say.

As for aid and military budgets, there are a few nations on earth that look after US interests, and I'm sure that they get some of their investment back, oil contracts, natural resources, etc etc.

But hey, if you are the world's baby sitter, you've not gonna do it for $10 an hour are you?

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.

reply to post by sharps


I can only speculate. I hope you are wrong and it never happens. Because if I am right, and it does happen, things will look much different REAL soon.

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]

You jest, but I can see this scenario occurring in the future. Once China has been defeated there will have to eventually be a US (or North American Union) vs The World conquest to keep the war profiteering going and to keep us in a perpetual state of anxiety that makes us accept the police state.

The medium term goal is one world governement but first we must go through a period of continental entities like the EU. North American Union, South American Union, african Union etc. Only when these entities are up and running can the next stage of the plan be put into action.

Isn't the US a rogue state already?

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

 

Our presence is one of the reasons the world has remained as stable as it is.
We are a super power. The only one left.
When we become a third world nation (see Obama's plan for the future) then we can bring everyone back to keep control of the food lines and the riots that will occur.

Of course, one could always consult with the 'host' countries...mind you the good ol' US of A has an alarming habit of propping up regimes at war with their own people.

But I suppose it's the bigger picture that counts....

...and never let an opportunity to take a swipe at Obama go by...even if one looks like a fool making that stretch!

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.

In a nutshell, yes!
.

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

 

Actually as a percentage of GDP, charitable funds given by the US to other nations only puts the US in 23rd place. So as a share of the charitable load as it were the US gets off lightly.

Those figures don't take into account private donations to charitable organizations. Factor that in, and we donate more money to the 3rd world than every nation on Earth combined.

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.
Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1% increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2%, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2% rise as stocks rose more than 10% on an inflation-adjusted basis.

"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially.

Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher.

Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively.

"I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said.

The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005.

Meanwhile, companies and their foundations gave less in 2006, dropping 10.5% to $12.72 billion. Jolly said corporate giving fell because companies had been so generous in response to the natural disasters and because profits overall were less strong in 2006 over the year before.

The Giving USA report counts money given to foundations as well as grants the foundations make to non-profits and other groups, since foundations typically give out only income earned without spending the original donations.

link