Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ International affairs _ Should the US bring ALL the troops home?

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 11:58 AM

Got a question for everybody, and I hope this doesn't turn into another pissing contest.

Let's say the US government decided to pull all the troops home. Not only those in combat, but those stationed all around the world. Everybody in Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy, etc., etc. The US pulls everybody home, concentrates on securing our borders, and says have at it, world. To the UN, we'll even increase our money to the "peace-keeping" efforts from it's current one-third of the total budget to one-half.
I know nobody has a crystal ball, and this is pure speculation, but is there anyone out there who actually thinks the world would be a better place in 5, 10 or 20 years?

Posted by: Rinkydink 25.Feb.2006, 12:24 PM

Do you believe for a second that the US are giving their "help" to make the world a better place?

The moon is made of cheese also...

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 12:37 PM

:?: :?: :?:

Posted by: Rinkydink 25.Feb.2006, 12:40 PM

"I know nobody has a crystal ball, and this is pure speculation, but is there anyone out there who actually thinks the world would be a better place in 5, 10 or 20 years?"

What didn't you understand???

I merely pointed out that the US are not exactly trying to make the world a better place.

Posted by: Rinkydink 25.Feb.2006, 12:45 PM

To make it a bit clearer for you - yes take all the troops home and leave everyone on their own free will to "make the world a better place".

Posted by: Braderunner Rennuredarb 25.Feb.2006, 12:46 PM

I would love to run a simulation of such an event. Personally - I think it would be hilarious...in a bus load of nuns and lepers having a wreck with a tequila truck kind of way.

You will always have "people" like Tippytoppy and others that will say that the US causes more problems than they fix...and will always try to turn discussions into pissing contests. :roll:

Posted by: Rinkydink 25.Feb.2006, 12:49 PM

@Jason

I am not anti-american so please behave. I am not very much into politics either, but Iraq is a lot better now I think.

Posted by: marshman 25.Feb.2006, 12:59 PM

What a good idea,but it would never happen,as half the US economy is based on their arms programs and surely you do not expect them to test these on their own people :shock: We in Europa could very well do without US troops and interference but I have to believe(begrudgingly)that they are needed in Korea and other parts of South East Asia.As regards Iraq,I would like ALL troops pulled out NOW,they are not wanted by the Iraqs and you cant help those who do not want to be helped.To any one who believes that they,the US got us out of trouble in WW2,well,the fact remains that if not for Churchill they would NEVER have been involved,it was,in truth,the Allied and Commonwealth forces that got them out of goal against Japan by taking the brunt of fighting all through the Burma region and the only way the Yanks could end it was with Atom bombs.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 01:06 PM

Nothing like rewriting history, huh? I for one believe that good old Europa liked having the troops there when the USSR was breathing down their necks.

Posted by: Braderunner Rennuredarb 25.Feb.2006, 01:07 PM

Marshman - you truly show where your head is currently located - in a marsh somewhere.

Do you REALLY think that Germany wants the US bases out of Germany? Oh there are some greens that want it...but they bring money and jobs to the area. Same thing in many other places. Plus there is the bonus of "protection" - we dont need a big army, we have te US here if we need them.

Regarding Iraqis - yeah, the terrorist jihadies dont want them there...but wait...they really do...because it just ads to their "cause." The majority dont WANT an occuping force, but they know its needed right now.

And I do have to add one LITTLE correction:

QUOTE
...and the only way the Yanks could end it[WW2 - Pacific front] was with Atom bombs.
is so complete shite, I dont know where to begin. Sit your obviously know NOTHING about military strategy self down and do some reading before you spout your mouth off about something you know nothing about. :evil:

Posted by: Alice Is Back 25.Feb.2006, 01:16 PM

Proud2busmarine I will give you a straight answer to this. One of Rumsfeld's proposals was to move troops into Eastern Europe from Germany. And almost all the Germans went into a tizzy becasue if they closed bases here in Germany then all those Germans who work on the base would loose their jobs and the local economies would collapse. So maybe 1% of Germans want the Yanks to leave and everyone else wants them to stay.

Posted by: Rinkydink 25.Feb.2006, 01:23 PM

@AIB

What newspaper was this in? Have you a link, as there was nothing on German TV?

Posted by: Alice Is Back 25.Feb.2006, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (Tippytoppy)
@AIB

What newspaper was this in? Have you a link, as there was nothing on German TV?


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1300783,00.html

QUOTE
"But, nevertheless, the withdrawal of troops is a loss, of course. We regret it; the American soldiers were welcome here. But it is a sign of success at the same time -- the success of having overcome the Cold War and European division," Voigt told reporters.


btw voigt is a social democrat

Posted by: Roy E 25.Feb.2006, 01:55 PM

I'm like to see the US pull troops out of Western Europe - Germany in particular.
Europe has been getting a free ride on defense far too long. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 25.Feb.2006, 02:08 PM

no roy becasue germany is the best basis of the u.s. military for activities in the middle east and in eurasia. Sure bases can be placed in bulgaria and romania but the expertise and infrastructure is the better in Germany. It is no accident that the u.s. military hospital is in ramstein and most wonded soldiers from iraq are sent there first. Finally roy have you forgotten the contribution of german soldiers in afghanistan? Germany has been hevily involved here!! Even bush thanked schröder for this.

Posted by: marshman 25.Feb.2006, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Nothing like rewriting history, huh? I for one believe that good old Europa liked having the troops there when the USSR was breathing down their necks.


The reason for US troops in Europa during the cold war had nothing to do with protecting Europa,more that the US was threatened due to the shortest route from Moscow to N.York.ie over the north pole,just remember it's only a short walking distance between Russia and Alaska,relitively speaking.The Americans have never helped anyone without theres something in it for them.

Posted by: Roy E 25.Feb.2006, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
The reason for US troops in Europa during the cold war had nothing to do with protecting Europa,more that the US was threatened due to the shortest route from Moscow to N.York.ie over the north pole,just remember it's only a short walking distance between Russia and Alaska,relitively speaking.The Americans have never helped anyone without theres something in it for them.


:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Wow. we need to sign you up for remedial history lessons immediately to keep you from embarassing yourself any further!

How about if we start with the Fulda Gap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap

Posted by: Gully Gull 25.Feb.2006, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Nothing like rewriting history, huh? I for one believe that good old Europa liked having the troops there when the USSR was breathing down their necks.


Breathing down their necks? The USSR could/would never have invaded Western Europe. They had enough trouble keeping the likes of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslavakia in line, not to mention other less stable areas of the Soviet empire. Look at the headache that just going into Afghanistan gave them.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 25.Feb.2006, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Gully Gull)
Breathing down their necks? The USSR could/would never have invaded Western Europe. They had enough trouble keeping the likes of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslavakia in line, not to mention other less stable areas of the Soviet empire. Look at the headache that just going into Afghanistan gave them.


what are you talking about?? of course they were a threat and it should be pointed out the west germans were first allowed in 1955 to have an army. Who was to defend west germany then uk and france? All German gov't were and are heavily supportive of American soldiers on German soil. Also the communists were able to take south vietnam and almost south korea through an invasion. I think you have seriously misjudjed history here.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 06:33 PM

Damn. All I was really looking for was a "No, the I think the world would go to hell in a handbasket", or "Yes, I think the world can live in peace if only the US would stop with their imperialistic ways". I'm of the former opinion, personally.

Posted by: The Teenage Diplomat 25.Feb.2006, 06:35 PM

It's realism vs idealism.

Posted by: Kodos 25.Feb.2006, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
What a good idea,but it would never happen,as half the US economy is based on their arms programs and surely you do not expect them to test these on their own people :shock: We in Europa could very well do without US troops and interference but I have to believe(begrudgingly)that they are needed in Korea and other parts of South East Asia.As regards Iraq,I would like ALL troops pulled out NOW,they are not wanted by the Iraqs and you cant help those who do not want to be helped.To any one who believes that they,the US got us out of trouble in WW2,well,the fact remains that if not for Churchill they would NEVER have been involved,it was,in truth,the Allied and Commonwealth forces that got them out of goal against Japan by taking the brunt of fighting all through the Burma region and the only way the Yanks could end it was with Atom bombs.


Bullshit.

Pearl Harbor.

Unless Churchill was covertly working with the Japense...your supposition is a steaming pile of poopy.

Posted by: Kodos 25.Feb.2006, 06:49 PM

Oh...and if you're thinking of some slick response about the Yanks involvement in the European Theatre...

Germany declared war on the United States.

Maybe you should drop your Revisionist History class at Blockhead University. I hear there are still seats available for the Rocks for Jocks program...

Posted by: Kodos 25.Feb.2006, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
The reason for US troops in Europa during the cold war had nothing to do with protecting Europa,more that the US was threatened due to the shortest route from Moscow to N.York.ie over the north pole,just remember it's only a short walking distance between Russia and Alaska,relitively speaking.


*hands Marshman a compass and a map*

Maybe you should try. The Swedes just love Orienteering.

QUOTE (marshman)
The Americans have never helped anyone without theres something in it for them.


*throws Marshman a binky*

As the saying goes...if you can't satisfy 'em, pacify 'em.

Posted by: marshman 25.Feb.2006, 07:08 PM

The US was warned by British intelligence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl harbour,but they would not listen,British war ships steamed out of Pearl 24hours before the attack.When war was declared between the Us and Japan,Churhill declared war on Japan as ally to the US,at this time the US was not engaged in the war in Europa but this act by Churchill forced their hand,it was hard for the US as Churchill had dual US and British nationality,but again I state that the US have NEVER helped ANYONE with out wanting twice as much in return,the only country they could'nt control was Russia,at the end of the war when the US held its hand out for payment,the Russians had the sense and the balls to tell them to get stuffed,"you supplied materials and we supplied the man power"was Stalins reply to them.
There is also the fact that had the US not been so pigheaded and not insisted that the allies stopped at the Rhein,to let the Soviet troops move in to Berlin the cold war would not have been created in the first place.When is comes to the US the truth is,with friends like them,who needs enemies.To finish,I can at least discuss this without lowering myself to cheap personal comments,which by the way only shows the ignorence of the writer.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
,it was,in truth,the Allied and Commonwealth forces that got them out of goal against Japan by taking the brunt of fighting all through the Burma region and the only way the Yanks could end it was with Atom bombs.


I wasn't going to jump into this mess (I think it's being handled pretty well already), but as an armchair historian, I couldn't let this one pass. Yes, the Brits fought a hard campaign in Burma(aided by US troops- see Merrill's Marauders for details), but you may want to google the following names for an idea of the US contribution to the Pacific war-

Midway
Guadalcanal
Tarawa
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
The Phillipines

The US was fully capable of capturing the Japanese home islands by force, thanks. We dropped the Bomb so we didn't have to incur US casualties. I and my grandfathers are eternally grateful to Harry S. Truman for that decision.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
,at this time the US was not engaged in the war in Europa but this act by Churchill forced their hand


If you're gonna keep smoking that shit, at least pass it around. Germany declared war on the US. Read a book now and then, it's good for you.

QUOTE (marshman)
,it was hard for the US as Churchill had dual US and British nationality,

Not awarded until 1963, try again.

QUOTE (marshman)
but again I state that the US have NEVER helped ANYONE with out wanting twice as much in return,

An opinion you're welcome to, but in no way a fact. Care to back up your statement with some actual info, ace?

QUOTE (marshman)
the only country they could'nt control was Russia,at the end of the war when the US held its hand out for payment,the Russians had the sense and the balls to tell them to get stuffed,"you supplied materials and we supplied the man power"was Stalins reply to them.

So an insane despot turned on his benefactor. Point?

QUOTE (marshman)
There is also the fact that had the US not been so pigheaded and not insisted that the allies stopped at the Rhein,to let the Soviet troops move in to Berlin the cold war would not have been created in the first place.

??? USSR did not already control huge swaths of eastern europe?

QUOTE (marshman)
When is comes to the US the truth is,with friends like them,who needs enemies.


What country do you live in? Chances are, without the US in the cold war, you would be speaking Russian.

Posted by: Kodos 25.Feb.2006, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
The US was warned by British intelligence that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl harbour,but they would not listen,British war ships steamed out of Pearl 24hours before the attack.When war was declared between the Us and Japan,Churhill declared war on Japan as ally to the US,at this time the US was not engaged in the war in Europa but this act by Churchill forced their hand,it was hard for the US as Churchill had dual US and British nationality,but again I state that the US have NEVER helped ANYONE with out wanting twice as much in return,the only country they could'nt control was Russia,at the end of the war when the US held its hand out for payment,the Russians had the sense and the balls to tell them to get stuffed,"you supplied materials and we supplied the man power"was Stalins reply to them.
There is also the fact that had the US not been so pigheaded and not insisted that the allies stopped at the Rhein,to let the Soviet troops move in to Berlin the cold war would not have been created in the first place.When is comes to the US the truth is,with friends like them,who needs enemies.To finish,I can at least discuss this without lowering myself to cheap personal comments,which by the way only shows the ignorence of the writer.


I wouldn't so much call it "ignorant." I think "arrogant" is more appropriate.

Ignorance means that you are devoid of knowledge. Which...I am not, as I have taken the time to prove that you are, indeed, incorrect.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Gully Gull)
Breathing down their necks? The USSR could/would never have invaded Western Europe. They had enough trouble keeping the likes of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslavakia in line, not to mention other less stable areas of the Soviet empire. Look at the headache that just going into Afghanistan gave them.


Try reading a little about Stalin. Specifically, how he tried to force a confrontation with the west, hoping to start a 3rd world war just before he died. Nothing stamps out internal dissent like fighting a war for national survival.

Posted by: marshman 25.Feb.2006, 08:12 PM

Dock Ellis

Churchill was half American by birth,this is a fact.

Posted by: marshman 25.Feb.2006, 08:14 PM

From Time 100.

From the outset of his premiership, Churchill, half American by birth, had rested his hope of ultimate victory in U.S. intervention. He had established a personal relationship with President Roosevelt that he hoped would flower into a war-winning alliance. Roosevelt's reluctance to commit the U.S. beyond an association "short of war" did not dent his optimism. He always hoped events would work his way. The decision by Japan, Hitler's ally, to attack the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, justified his hopes. That evening he confided to himself, "So we had won after all."

America's entry into the Second World War marked the high point of Churchill's statesmanship. Britain, demographically, industrially and financially, had entered the war weaker than either of its eventual allies, the Soviet Union and the U.S. Defeats in 1940 had weakened it further, as had the liquidation of its international investments to fund its early war efforts. During 1942, the prestige Britain had won as Hitler's only enemy allowed Churchill to sustain parity of leadership in the anti-Nazi alliance with Roosevelt and Stalin.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 09:27 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
Dock Ellis

Churchill was half American by birth,this is a fact.


Yes, but he was not a US citizen until President Kennedy named him the first Honorary Citizen Of The United States in 1963.

That lengthy quote from Time merely states that Churchill hoped the US would intervene on the allied side- it was the Japanese who actually made it happen (much to their everlasting chagrin).

QUOTE (marshman)
When war was declared between the Us and Japan,Churhill declared war on Japan as ally to the US


Well, not really- the Japanese attacked Hong Kong 8 hours after Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 25.Feb.2006, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
Proud2busmarine I will give you a straight answer to this. One of Rumsfeld's proposals was to move troops into Eastern Europe from Germany. And almost all the Germans went into a tizzy becasue if they closed bases here in Germany then all those Germans who work on the base would loose their jobs and the local economies would collapse. So maybe 1% of Germans want the Yanks to leave and everyone else wants them to stay.


Yeah, but Eastern Europe would love to get those bases. U.S. military bases are mad business for the surrounding community both domestically and in foreign countries. Besides just the people employed by the base, the soldiers purchase at local stores, eat and drink at local establishments, and generally pour their disposable income into the surrounding area.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 25.Feb.2006, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (marshman)
The Americans have never helped anyone without theres something in it for them.

Give me a break. When was the last time you did something completely pure and unselfish and derived no benefit whatsoever, including being able to say "I did a good thing"?

Congressional Budget foreign operations justifications by region (the interesting part is that the beginning of each bit details what our interests are in those places):

http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJAfrica.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJEAsia.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJEurope.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJNearEast.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJSAsia.pdf
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2006/CBJWHemisphere.pdf

Don't worry, I have no expectation you will actually read all that as it's dark where your head is, and I don't expect you thought to bring a flashlight when you lodged it there.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 25.Feb.2006, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
no roy becasue germany is the best basis of the u.s. military for activities in the middle east and in eurasia.


Until Iraq is stable and we've a large military base there. But it will still take years to build up an infrastructure like what is in Germany.

<hijack>
My all time favorite hostname is evil.ramstein.af.mil, followed by Gunter's superhero naming convention. Seeing them in my logs always makes me giggle.
</hijack>

Posted by: Rinkydink 26.Feb.2006, 12:13 PM

And why did US invade Iraq?

Answers on the back of a stamp please

Posted by: Cyberfluff 26.Feb.2006, 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Tippytoppy)
And why did US invade Iraq?


WMD. Duh. Haven't you been following? [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/878.gif[/img]

Posted by: Kodos 27.Feb.2006, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
WMD. Duh. Haven't you been following? [img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/878.gif[/img]


Cute, Melanie.

I thought we got lost on our way to Albuquerque. tongue.gif

Posted by: Mike 27.Feb.2006, 05:15 PM

There are over 70,000 American troops stationed in Germany alone. Germany would be pretty upset if 70,000 consumers got up and left in one day. The German officials get pretty nervous when we talk about leaving.

Posted by: Kodos 27.Feb.2006, 05:18 PM

Excellent point, Mike.

Posted by: Mike 27.Feb.2006, 05:23 PM

It's interesting that the US can use leaving as a threat. Ususally it's the other way around; a country threatens to invade.

Posted by: Benzed 27.Feb.2006, 05:40 PM

Yes.

Posted by: Fredde 27.Feb.2006, 06:49 PM

I think it is time that the US exit Europe. This is not because I do not like their presence in Europe but because I do think it is time that Europe as a whole up their game a bit on the military front.

The US has been a longstanding friend and ally to Sweden (even though we are supposedly neutral). Remember there are more people of Swedish descent in the US than in Sweden. Circa 16 million people in the US has Swedish lineage. I have distant family somewhere over there.

I hope that the US and Europe will be longstanding friends for many hundred years more. This may or may not be a given due to demographic changes in the US and the rebound of the old Asian powers. (India and China were the biggest producers of goods and services before the industrial revolution thus Europe and the Wests dominance is an historical anomality).

Overall EU and the US shares common values and thus I for one think they have worked as a stabilising force during the post war period. A lot of bad stuff has been done in the name of freedom but what empire/superpower has clean hands? I would consider Britain to be much much worse in its conduct in the world.

Sweden has fought 5 major wars throughout history with Russia. We won 4 and lost the latest. We have maintained a deterrent throughout the postwar period making the Soviets consider Sweden not worth the cost of invasion. Currently we are dismantling our defence forces due to stupid lefties and this needs to stop.

Hopefully an exit by the US from Europe will make them reconsider and rearm Sweden proper again.

Posted by: Mike 27.Feb.2006, 08:49 PM

Excellent post, Fredde.

Posted by: Markbase With An Invisible Silen 27.Feb.2006, 10:32 PM

I think it's about time the US left America and all went back to where they came from, bloody foreigners.

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net -
for observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 27.Feb.2006, 10:44 PM

That would be Europe then.. laugh.gif

Posted by: Markbase With An Invisible Silen 27.Feb.2006, 10:47 PM

Ahh, the irony...

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net -
for observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg

Posted by: Beth 27.Feb.2006, 11:14 PM

QUOTE (Nico)
That would be Europe then.. laugh.gif


or asia, or south america or africa...but not really down under...and definitely not antartica.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 27.Feb.2006, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (Markbase)
I think it's about time the US left America and all went back to where they came from, bloody foreigners.

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net -
for observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg


and the Canadians???

Posted by: Beth 27.Feb.2006, 11:30 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
and the Canadians???


they're nice. they can stay.

Posted by: Markbase With An Invisible Silen 27.Feb.2006, 11:35 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
they're nice. they can stay.

8)

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net -
for observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)