Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 5/7/2001 9:28:34 AM EST
The American Empire During the Clinton administration, America deployed more U.S. forces to more foreign countries than ever before. Incredibly, at the same time, the Clinton White House oversaw U.S. military forces cut by 40 percent. You might think, with a new administration in place, there would be wide debate about such policies. Yet, the Bush administration has said and done little to suggest a radical change in policy will be forthcoming. In fact, the Bush administration has already renewed bombing attacks on Iraq -- a nasty regime to be sure, but the continuation of a misguided, unconstitutional and un-American foreign and military policy to say the least. It's time someone put the question to Bush: We have 211,000 American service personnel stationed in 139 countries around the world. We have another 26,000 serving on naval vessels in foreign waters. Why? And when are we going to start bringing them home in droves? Think about it. The U.S. still has 70,000 soldiers serving in Germany today. Germany! Those troops were deployed there during the Cold war, when the U.S. and western Europe feared a Soviet invasion was imminent. What is the rationale for keeping them there today? The U.S. still has 40,570 troops in Japan. Are we worried the emperor is going to make a comeback and bomb Pearl Harbor? Are we worried China is about to invade Japan? If so, why do we extend to China most favored nation trading status? The U.S. still has 36,263 troops in South Korea. Now, this is one place where there is a constant threat of war. North Korea is still technically in a state of war with the South, and the U.S. may be able to justify the continued presence. But why isn't there any debate about it? Why aren't long-term alternatives to this policy being discussed? Are we going to defend South Korea forever? Wouldn't we be better off helping the South Koreans to defend themselves against potential aggression? The U.S. still has 11,564 troops occupying Italy. Why? Do we fear the reincarnation of Benito Mussolini? From whom are we protecting Italians? Themselves? The U.S. even has 11,274 troops in Great Britain. Great Britain has a pretty good military force of its own. Don't we trust them to defend themselves? The U.S. has a force of 7,169 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What vital interests does the U.S. have there? The U.S. maintains a force of 5,469 in Kuwait. Is Kuwait paying us for this protection? I don't think so. And the U.S. should not be in the mercenary business anyway. It's not in our Constitution.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 9:29:06 AM EST
The U.S. has 5,423 troops in Serbia, including Kosovo. Hey, Slobodan Milosevic is gone. He was arrested by his own countrymen. Enough is enough, already. The U.S. has a force of 5,397 troops in Saudi Arabia defending the wealthy tyrants in that desert country. Why should ordinary Americans pay with blood and hard-earned money to protect Saudi Arabia? The U.S. has 2,123 troops in Spain, 2,105 in Turkey, 1,677 in Iceland, 1,598 in Belgium, 1,112 in Bahrain, 997 in Portugal, 774 in the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 670 in the Netherlands, 627 in Diego Garcia and 517 in Greece. There are smaller U.S. troop commitments in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Uganda, Russia and 12 other countries that formerly comprised the Soviet Union. Why aren't we talking about bringing any of these troops home? This would be a sensible way to cut military spending. This would be a sensible way to get back to our constitutional republic. This would be a sensible way to stop being the policeman of the world. But no … there is no end in sight to this madness. We have not learned the lessons of every other empire in the history of the world that spread itself too thin, that over-committed its resources, that didn't understand that every fight is not its fight. Are there serious threats to American security in the world? You bet there are. But we can never be prepared for them with our military forces spread far and wide across the globe. In fact, this is insurance that we won't be ready for the next war, the next flashpoint, when it inevitably comes. I say bring the troops home now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com and writes a daily column.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:31:03 AM EST
And the powers that be are trying to reestablish an American naval base in the Philippines. I agree, we have an American Empire. We don't need it.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:36:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 10:49:37 AM EST
Ok, I will take this one. I am prior military and somewhat an familiar with this. We have many reasons for our presence abroad. All the countries we "occupy" are areas that could have been turned communist. Had we not been in Europe at the end of WWII the Russians would have taken everything Hilter left behind which happened to be most of Europe. While I don't think it's quite fair, we are there to defend them because they can't or won't. We are there to train with them to defend our freedom (what's left of it). We are there to learn their ways and keep friendship with their government. We are often called ambassidors when we are stationed in other countries. We need to make sure democracy prevails in alot more countries than just the US. We don't need our strong military here in the US because we have citizens like you that are armed. Almost all of the countries we "occupy" are unarmed because they had pansy-ass politicians to decide they wanted to be gun-free instead of self sufficient. That being said it is to our best interest to remain in these countries. My .02 worth
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:03:39 AM EST
DeerSlayer, I agree 100%. Not to mention the fact that it is better to fight a war in Europe than in your back yard. All of those forces all over the world also allow a quicker response and containment of any agressions that break out over there that could threaten the United States. Even if they used ICBMs to attack the US from afar, we are already at their doorstep within days.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 11:56:51 AM EST
We are there to learn their ways and keep friendship with their government. We are often called ambassidors when we are stationed in other countries.
View Quote
I, for one, would not be very happy if some other country were to station several thousand armed "ambassadors" in my backyard. And logisitically, while it's nice to have your assets close to where they'll be used, it's also very expensive to maintain them when they're spread all over the globe.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 12:49:12 PM EST
deerslayer:
we need to make sure democracy prevails in a lot more countries than just the US
View Quote
i dont want democracy (mob rule) to prevail anywhere, much less in the US which is supposed to be a constitutional Republic. our founding fathers warned of the dangers of democracy in various writings. dont believe me? do the research. i side with them before anybody else. agree with matt VDW Republic, Republic, Republic! saying lib
Top Top