Why do we keep building bases overseas?

[man with no head]

Isn't it about time they start paying for and taking care of their own defense?

BBC NEWS | Europe | Italians march in US base protest

Shouldn't we start bringing the boys back from South Korea? Japan? Europe? Iraq?

[Itchy]

Shouldn't we start bringing the boys back from South Korea? Japan? Europe? Iraq?

The US learned the cost of Isolationism in WWII.

US military policy since WWII has been if the US needs to fight a war, do so in other people's countries.

Understand that and the reason for US troops in other people's countries becomes clear.

[man with no head]

But with today's aircraft, carriers, and missiles...it would appear that manpower on the ground is useless (witness the failure of Iraq....).

The U.S. was better off when it was isolated.

[barbaro]

Shouldn't we start bringing the boys back from South Korea? Japan? Europe? Iraq?

The US learned the cost of Isolationism in WWII.

US military policy since WWII has been if the US needs to fight a war, do so in other people's countries.

Understand that and the reason for US troops in other people's countries becomes clear.

It leads to hegemony. Or, it has lead to hegemony.

There are bases scattered througout Central Asia now.

Serious question: who pays for most of the costs?

The U.S. or the host country.

I assume they share the cost.

Perhaps, not.

[Itchy]

The U.S. was better off when it was isolated.

The US has never been isolated.

[kingwilly]

But with today's aircraft, carriers, and missiles...it would appear that manpower on the ground is useless (witness the failure of Iraq....).

with out manpower on the ground no war can EVER be won....

the US made that mistake in Vietnam (ie tried to fight a war using helicopters)

made that mistake in Iraq (remember shock and awe?)

[man with no head]

We should also withdraw from NATO and all other alliances. Placing 300,000+ Americans overseas to protect someone else's property costs each American $700 per year. My taxes could go down if Europeans, South Koreans, etc. started paying their own way for a change.

While we're at it we should cut all foreign aid to Egypt and Israel. Another several billion dollars saved per year. IF Egypt and Israel want to wipe each other out that's their problem.

[kingwilly]

While we're at it we should cut all foreign aid to Egypt and Israel. Another several billion dollars saved per year. IF Egypt and Israel want to wipe each other out that's their problem.

Amen to that!

[lom]

We should also withdraw from NATO

Yes, please.

[raycarey]

we should cut all foreign aid to Egypt

risky.

[Itchy]

Don't get me wrong Surasak, I have no problem with US tax payers cutting their taxes by reducing the US oveseas military presence.

If you manage to fight your own wars on your own soil, I'd be happy with that too.

Just accept, that if the US wants to consume the lion's share of the world's resources, there comes a time when the US has to fight to keep more than its fair share.

[Mr Earl]

As soon as everyone accepts the fact that the US will have a permanent presence in Iraq the better.
Syria and Iran are in line for some spanking and US bases in Iraq will be important for that.

[Little Chuchok]

While we're at it we should cut all foreign aid to Egypt and Israel. Another several billion dollars saved per year. IF Egypt and Israel want to wipe each other out that's their problem.

What effect would that have not only in the region,but the rest of the world?

[sabang]

As soon as everyone accepts the fact that the US will have a permanent presence in Iraq the better.
Syria and Iran are in line for some spanking and US bases in Iraq will be important for that.

The US will not have a permanent base in Iraq. They may well end up guarding oil.
You are wasting taxpayers money on these ridiculous installations.

[man with no head]

We could take the same trillion dollars (and the $250 billion per year as well it costs us now to maintain overseas bases) and instead invest it in energy saving technologies which would make needing that overseas oil unnecessary.

A nuclear North Korea, for example, just trumped all U.S. soldiers stationed in the DMZ.

A trillion dollars pumped into the economy would be better than a trillion dollars of debt with no return whatsoever. Giving every American $700 every year due to lower taxes would be of better benefit overall as well. Lowering our oil consumption by investing in better technology would be a better net effect than sending 100,000s overseas to fight a war that will never be won by they way it's being fought.

50 years ago we needed overseas bases. Today we don't.

[Whiteshiva]

We should also withdraw from NATO and all other alliances. Placing 300,000+ Americans overseas to protect someone else's property costs each American $700 per year. My taxes could go down if Europeans, South Koreans, etc. started paying their own way for a change.

It probably would, but why should we?

[Wallace]

The troops in South Korea are a UN force. The US, and all other countries that are obliged to maintain the 38th parallel, are there because of the agreements reached in 1954.

If the US wants to remove its troops, then it will have to withdraw from the UN altogether. Now, that's something I'd like to see. First new UN resolution - the US is an aggressive and unstable force and should be demilitarised immediately.

[man with no head]

I think it's time for the U.S. to end its membership in the UN as well. Another relic of the past that is obsolete along with NATO.

[sabang]

I reckon the US should start scaling down NATO.
Still reckon stay in the un though.

[Butterfly]

I think it's time for the U.S. to end its membership in the UN as well. Another relic of the past that is obsolete along with NATO.

I strongly disagree. Those 2 institutions can do wonder with a bit of good will from the G7 leaders. Only when you have a weak fuckwit leader like GW Bush, things go wrong. Any organizations with no leadership will underperform, that's how it is. An organization can't function on its mechanism alone. We wish it could, but it can't. And this is true for any organization, may it be commercial or non-for-profit, or even political.

[man with no head]

The weakness with the UN is that the 5 'winners' of World War II (60 years ago) still have veto powers.

Get rid of the veto power.

[Wallace]

A very good point. I believe that votes on military intervention should be made using a majority system, with countries being most directly affected being given 2 votes. Just an idea.