Amazon.com Widgets
  • Starts unnecessary wars

    U. S. Bases often cause officials to urge American intervention wherever conflict might break out. But this risks entangling us in foreign wars that are none of our business. If conflict breaks out over maritime or territorial disputes in the East and South China Sea, The U. S. May be obligated to intervene against China to fulfill its security guarantee to Taiwan, Japan, Or the Philippines. Getting into a war with China over some uninhabited rocks of no strategic importance to us is not in our interests.

  • Doesn't protect America/oil supply

    U. S. Leaders often argue that bases are the centerpiece of a liberal, Rules-based world order. They claim that bases in Europe protect European allies from Russia, Bases in the Middle East ensure the free flow of oil and contain Iranian influence, And bases in Asia defend our Asian allies from a rising China and an unstable North Korea. But stationing 80, 000 troops at 350 installations in Europe is not directly related to securing Americans’ physical safety. The same goes for the more than 154, 000 active-duty personnel based throughout Asia. And the argument that maintaining a forward-deployed military posture in the Middle East protects the free flow of oil is supported by pitifully sparse empirical evidence.

  • Foreign Presence Unnecessary

    Some argue that bases allow rapid military response. That’s certainly true to some extent. But modern military technology has significantly reduced the problems of travel times over long distances. According to a recent RAND Corporation report, “lighter ground forces can deploy by air from the United States almost as quickly as they can from within a region. ” Long-range bombers can fly missions up to 9, 000 miles, And after that they can be refueled in the air, Reducing the need to have in-place forces abroad.

  • ImAnKInd wiLL DIE iN 74 lIGhtYears

    Man kind will be wiped out in this amount of time because of military bases because of the toxic gasses left to rot. FOR EXAMPLE OPERATION ICEWORM IS TRAPED UNDER CAPS OF ICE WITH TONS OF FUEL KILLING THEM WHICH IS BAD For CLIMATE BecAUSE It KILL so no more!

  • Outdated Political Assumptions

    The current U. S. Model of global policing is an old Cold War blunder. In the past, The U. S. Interventionist policy was made in opposition to the Soviet design's popularity across the world.

    These developing nations that wanted to adopt socialism were to have primarily command economies and conduct trade primarily with other socialist countries. Bear in mind that in Marxist thought, The invasion of another country to facilitate economic growth is taboo. The funding of liberation movements are not. Likewise, The liberation of other nations for moralistic purposes (such as the case with China and Tibet- although China did defy those taboos with the invasion of Vietnam. Much how Stalin broke the rules with the invasion of Yugoslavia) was otherwise justified.

    The U. S. Did not find socialism acceptable for whatever reason (they do regularly say live and let live, But don't seem to allow resource wealthy nations to have that freedom). The result was a mass occupation in key areas of the world to ensure neoliberal values globally.

    The idea is that if we don't stay around the world we will get attacked. What people don't think about are numerous.

    1. Technological superiority: The U. S. Has a huge military. Like, Unimaginable to most. The devices used are also decades ahead of most of the world (DPRK for example) and many of them are defense purposed.

    2. Geographical advantage: to the South of the U. S. , No military exists with comparative strength to be of any threat. Brazil arguably is, But is not actively engaged or interested in war. To the North is the allied Canada. To the East and West are large, Open oceans that are easily barricaded to ensure safety. There is ZERO way that any attack, Be it by mechanical devices like ICBMs or by attempted landing, Could ever come to fruition. U. S. Security protocols definitely need updated, However.

    3. Civilian engagement: let's assume some country gets mechanized infantry, Artillery or the like set up and enters on-soil warfare. Citizens are armed to the teeth. Most are well versed in how to use those rifles.

    4. Terrorism as a rouse: this one. In the 80's Bin Laden worked for us as a member of the Taliban. When the U. S. Dropped Pakistan cold turkey, Al Qaeda emerged and became a prime driver for an invasion in the region. From Al Qaeda, Another split occurred with the invasion of Iraq. From this, It became a Levantian crisis. One that oddly never truly caused the U. S. Issues.

    5. 9/11: likely not needing the explanation, But returning to the absolute uselessness of the CIA. Before 9/11 we had many threats on the neoliberal symbol. Despite this, Somehow we allowed two men from outside the nation attend flight school to learn to fly a plane. Curiously, It was found they didnt have plans to take the time to learn to land. If that isnt a red flag. . .

    I'm in the line of thought that much of this is engineered for economic goals.

  • I think the U.S. should end overseas Military operations..

    I think the U.S. should end overseas Military operations. Many miss their families and would like to be home more. Maybe it should not be ended forever, but just so that soldiers are able to see their families more.... That's all I have to say. I know a lot of people disagree, but this is my opinion..

  • Just stop please

    We have been in to many wars, I bet the soldiers just want a break from all the hard work they have done. They want to see their family's and friends form all different places. We have done a lot to save our country and other different states. We could save our family's think about that.

  • NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We Should Not!

    According to my research, 60% of illegal immigrants come into the United States by sea. We should strengthen our navy and stop illegal immigrants! If we strengthen our defenses, we could have better security of our country. Who doesn't want great security to protect this country. Please consider this opinion.

  • H hhhh h hh

    Hh h h hhhhhh hh h h h h hhh hh h hh h h h hh h h h h hh h h h h h h h h dbghhgb fdhbgb gjb gngbn ggb gnfbdfgnbkdfgbk fg b bgf nbgf kbg bjgfbnh nnnbn bn bn bnbnb b nbn bn bn n bnbnb

  • F dsgfgs fd

    Gfgggdhfghfghgfh gfhgfhf fghh h h h hh h hh hh h hh hhhhhhh h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh hh h h hhhh h h h h hhh h h h h hh h h h h h

  • Not completely, no.

    Of course the United States should scale back some of the military operations we have going on overseas, but I do not think every military base should be shut down and everything wrapped up. Much worse would happen without American military presence in much of the world. Much more sinister forces coud take over.

  • Keep the US military alive overseas.

    The US should not end overseas military operations. This is because our safety and security as a country depends upon our ability to protect ourselves at our military's hands. In addition, the military is a large employer of American citizens. If we end these operations, tens of thousands of people will be out of jobs.

  • No way, not now.

    The military should not scale back on it's military operations, heck even now there are too many terrorists in the world and America is having an extremely hard time forcing them back and making them less hostile so unless you want to risk the Americans citizens safety then don't cut back on military operations overseas.

  • How many lives were saved in the end?

    If we end overseas military operations then the infant countries we've helped. How could we save lives if we don't risk lives? The U.S. is doing a fine job as the world's police if that's what they are. Unless there withdrawn the can neutralize threats almost immediately. If the U.S. withdraws it won't be able to take on the sinister threats of this world. The soldiers of the United States know what they signed up for. They signed up to protect people from the evil of this world. So how many people were saved if the U.S. military is not able to fight these evil combatants?

  • Military Operations Ending

    It is difficult to scale between if it should end or not, because if the military ends it then that leaves the land they once claimed protected by the military overran by the other countries wanting to invade it. But if the military were to stay then it might cause wars to the U.S. and the foreigners would state that they do not need the Americans on their soil. Truth be told there has been less terrorist attacks at most places due to the protection of the military, so it might be highly better for the military to continue the operations for the protection of many foreigners that needs our help. You should remember the invasion of Hitler on the Jews, and how the U.S. military helped France in aid of the war, and it caused there to be more peace. My dad was also in the war of Iran and Iraq saving many of the people that has been wounded, and the war he fought during the gulf war, he was successfully able to only rescue two men during the war, fighting his own people for the U.S. He was willing to risk his life for the protection of many things. All the food he was given he only ate less than half and let me have the rest so I can live a good life. He is now retired from working with the marines having a weapon by his side to working with the hospital and became an X-ray Tech. He is now retired after all he has been through and he is happy to be with his family in the end, even in Oki Japan we lived a good life because they had good education there and all the Okinawans are peaceful having the U.S. military by there side. If the military was to retreat then the island would be overrun by other terrorists. If you were all there, it is really peaceful and warm too. I had so many friends there more than I ever had anywhere else, and they were peaceful too.

  • Terrorist will attack again

    If we get out of the countries we are in right now we will regret it. Terrorists will attack our facilities over there and get weapons/supplies that can go against us. The army is the reason we are alive. We could be slaves for all we know. Come on America you are better than this.

  • If we leave now before we end the terroist threat . We're setting ourselves up for more pain

    I know from the whole debacle in Iraq we left before the Iraqi government or military was ready for more enemies to their way of life. And look at what happened if we leave now the same thing will happened in Syria, Afghanistan, and many more middle eastern countries around the world

  • No, definitely not

    We need to protect other countries and ours. When we have overseas missions we help other countries and make our military stronger. Other countries think of us highly when we help other struggling countries. Pulling out troops would be catastrophic and lower our armies morale. Also good countries would fall to the evil ones if we pulled out troops.

  • Only to a certain Extent

    As of today, there are quite a few overseas operations, and lately they have been getting less and less effective. Considering the massive leaps technology is taking, physical military presence is hardly needed anymore. We could shoot a rocket anywhere in he world just from the United States if necessary. But we still need them out there because as mentioned threats will forever be coming. Take for Example ISIS. Do you want your Johnny Boys running back home with their tails between their legs only to have ISIS torture your butt off? And then kill you and your family? I thought not!

  • Not At All!

    The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries. The United States has a moral responsibility to help less fortunate countries.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.