Bring the troops home or not???

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
I would be for beginning a withdrawal immediately. I would also make certain that the countries in question start defending themselves. If they don't, and extremists take over again, we will be left with no choice but a return engagement. The major reason however for withdrawal is that we in the United States need the money to be spent here not over there. War is expensive and every country involved in this perpetual money pit is going broke doing it. There will be a time when total complete holocaust level destruction is the only way and that should be made clear as we make our exit.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Reading through this Thread, I think we have two competing points that are getting more fuzzy. This started with Mensch1351 focusing on a report on Afghanistan and then was expanded to include troops stationed overseas. I'll stay with the latter discussion.

I think most of the world (even most Americans) forget that US policies, the creation of NATO -- crucial to operations in the European theater -- and US military power were the only checks and balances to the Soviets for half of the last century. Now, I'm not suggesting that the military we need today has to be the budget-busting behemoth it has become and certainly the threats we face today are radically different than the post-WWII era, but I think there is a role for having a military presence outside of US borders.

The United States tried a policy of isolationism in the 1930s and was unable to sustain it. Apart from the logistical, political, legal, economic, and moral issues associated with 'bringing [all] our troops home', I will pose just one question: what makes us think isolationism or even a softer policy of non-interventionism will work now?