Who here is in favor of immediate and complete withdrawl from all Middle-Eastern countries?

[Ordr]

If not, why?
How can we make things better?


Edit: This includes Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and all other countries where we are by invitation.

[bryant69]

1. Should we also renounce any desire to defend Israel?

And what about Saudi Arabia?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ordr]

3. The ENTIRE Middle-East.

[bryant69]

5. Ah - you put it in all caps. Well that certainly settles my hash.

You realize we are in Saudi Arabia by invitation, right?

Bryant

[Ordr]

6. Yes, I do.

But our presence in the area is still counter-productive, in my opinion.

Edit: and the caps weren't to yell or anything, just to clarify. :)

[wuushew]

37. They can get in line after every other member of the U.N.

You don't need to live in a place to respond to an invasion. Seems our response to the invasion of Kuwait was more than adequate despite not having a preexisting garrison in that country pre-1990.

[Romulox]

48. Israel can defend itself. We've given it everything it could possibly need. nt

[Ordr]

50. Agreed.

[thereismore]

2. Aye.

[bdamomma]

4. me

the death count is imploding in Iraq, and even in Afghanistan. Those troops have got to get home.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. Me.

[acmavm]

8. Yes. The sooner the better. Then maybe we can learn to deal

with them on an honest level.

[patrice]

9. On the condition that new international coalitions are defined to respond to specified

threats to the security of nations in the region.

[Ordr]

12. Thank you, that leads up to my next question :)

What right, if any, do we have to interject ourselves into the matters of other sovereign nations unless there is a direct threat to our own?

[patrice]

23. That condition "threat to us" should be part of the conditions to which

the new international coalition would respond. That means then, of course, that other member nations can seek responses from the new coalition on the same condition, i.e. "threat to us", so we need a NEW process and NEW standards defining "threat", both processes and standards should be defined by concensus of the NEW coalition.

One would hope that the UN could be the mechanism in which such a thing would evolve, but apparently it IS paralyzed by its own forms of corruption, so it would be only an adjunct to the new coalition and it would be very clear that the new coalition does NOT depend upon the UN.

On edit: It looks like what I'm saying here is that each member would have to establish why "threat to us/my country" = "threat to ALL, or at least some significant proportion, and said "significant proportion" to be a product of another process that analyzes the extant factors and defines probable scenarios.

And then the whole set of processes and standards would need to be "evergreen" to a certain extent, so it can adapt to global conditions.

[Ordr]

29. I'm very wary of coalitions.

If a nation were to attack the country of a coalition member without military provocation but due to the internal politics of the attacked country, I would not want to come to their defense. I don't believe we would have the right to do so because we would be interfering with the politics of both nations. This is especially true with our Israel alliance. I believe that a great amount of the hatred coming toward us from the Muslim world is due to our staunch and unwavering support for Israel which seems to be regardless of Israeli political and military aggression against Islamic society. Judaism and Islam have been warring for a long, long time and we have zero right to interject ourselves into that situation because, as we've all seen, no good comes out of it.

That is only one of innumerable issues that has come about because of our interventionism. Our "aid" in sub-Saharan Africa in places like Somalia is another example. We cannot continue to risk our troops, money, reputation, and domestic safety with international entanglement.

[napi21]

10. I think withdrawl should be the goal, and our biggest bargaining

chip, but it should be negotiated with ALL the leaders in the ME. All those countries except Iraq have LEADERS, and I'm sure they'd
ALL love to see us GONE. Before we do that, we should have the committment of all of them that they will sign a peace agreement agreeing NOT to invade each other or support any civil war that might break out in Iraq.

I want our troops out of all of the ME too, but I think we need to establish an agreement whereby we can remove our equipment & people without risking devastation of the final 10,000 to 20,000 leaving who will have noone to protect them.

[L. Coyote]

11. And Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Australia, and the Moon.

Can anyone explain why we have military everywhere in the world? I mean really explain...

[Ordr]

13. I don't really get it either.

I'm 100% for non-interventionism unless in the case of proven impending attacks on the United States.

[L. Coyote]

15. It works just fine for Costa Rica. Not to mention, we provide the reason to be attacked

by projecting military force in other countries where we are not wanted and where our imperialist past is well-understood.

What Americas fail to realize is that the USA was built on invasion and genocide,
and the Bank of the fledgling USA was floated selling conquered Indian lands.

The "enterprise" that is the USA is all stolen land, obtained by invasions, murder and genocide, propped up by slavery, and maintained by militarism.

[Ordr]

16. Much of the world is built upon imperialism and genocide, unfortunately.

We're not unique in that respect. We can, however, begin to make things "better" by bringing our entire military home, streamlining it for defense, and saving trillions of dollars that can be used domestically.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Because a globalized world needs force

Because the US military either won the wars or outlasted all other centers of power during the 20th century, our military is the world's police. That we are the force behind international law, is the reason that so many other countries don't have to spend too much on their own military. Our military budget is so ginormous because nobody else is putting enough on the table for any kind of an actual global military to make sure everyone is on the same page(i.e. efficiency) when it comes to the global economy. If Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Australia would send more of their own people(especially Europe and Asia), I would think our military budget wouldn't be as high. If those other countries spent more for an international military-industrial complex to come up with the hardware, our budget wouldn't be as high. It's sort of like the same idea behind universal healthcare. The more people are in the system, the burden for each individual is less. The US taxpayer is paying the price for a lack of a global military in a globalized world.

That's my guess anyway.

[Ordr]

17. You're absolutely right.

Much of the "Westernized" world is using our military to either replace or significantly compliment their own. It has to either stop.

[L. Coyote]

18. You are wrong, in my opinion.

Exploitation and imperialism requires force. A globalized world does not. There is a significant difference.

[The2ndWheel]

20. I don't see that difference

"Exploitation and imperialism requires force. A globalized world does not."

I don't think you get a globalized world without exploitation and imperialism. I'm not sure you get the standard foundation for a globalized world without first imposing that standard(imperialism), and then enforcing it(exploitation). I don't know that you can get basically the same burger at every McDonalds on every street corner in every city without that force. I don't know that you can buy basically the same shirt at Wal-Mart without that force. I don't know that you can easily get Italian food(or whatever) thousands of miles away from Italy(of wherever) without that force. I don't know if every place in the world can slowly become the same place without that force.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. My problem is that I don't want to buy a McDonalds' burger in the middle of Peru. Nor do I ever want

to see a stupid Wal-Mart sitting in Donegal, Ireland. Why would anybody want a 'globalized world'? I truly enjoy traveling to places and enjoying cultures different (completely, different) from the crap that passes as culture here.

[The2ndWheel]

35. I'm with you 100.1%

"Why would anybody want a 'globalized world'?"

Easier to make a buck. If everything is the same, it's predictable. If everything is the same, it's interchangeable. If everything is the same, it's more efficient economically.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. We 'enforce' international law? What is the reason for a 'global military'? Whenever there has been

a real need for 'intervention', the UN or NATO has provided troops from many countries. Get the USA out of other countries affairs.

[The2ndWheel]

24. I wouldn't disagree with that last sentence

But I do think the US military is the force behind international law. The international law that we currently have wouldn't exist without the US military(defeating the Nazis, outlasting the Soviets, etc, etc). The UN and NATO don't have enough capability. Neither does the US military in today's world(although, we haven't left Iraq yet, and we won't be leaving either). That's why the world would need a global military.

"What is the reason for a 'global military'?"

The same reason for any military. To break down the barriers to production. To make expansion of your particular organized society possible.

"Whenever there has been a real need for 'intervention', the UN or NATO has provided troops from many countries."

Not enough troops from many countries though. The UN and NATO are a step in that direction, but it's not quite there.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Still don't get the need for a 'global military'. You seem to be saying that the military should

be used to expand 'your particular organized society', which I would equate to imperialism or the taking of others' resources for our use. I thought countries had militaries to protect themselves, not to invade and occupy other countries.

[The2ndWheel]

39. I'm not saying it should be used for that

I'm saying it is used for that. If you have a standing army, you have to get value for your investment. They can't just sit around for 20 years and do drills everyday. They have been, are, and will be used for offensive purposes.

"I thought countries had militaries to protect themselves, not to invade and occupy other countries."

Protect themselves from what? Other expanding centers of power.

"Still don't get the need for a 'global military'"

Because it's not really about "America", or "China", or any other outdated form of organization. Those entities exist less and less each day. It's not even about individual corporations, since they all merge together eventually. The need for a global military is because it protects the dominant system. It wouldn't allow any part of it to go off on its own. Again, predictable, interchangeable, efficient. The quest for perfection.

[stray cat]

21. Do you really think that solves the problems in the middle east?

[Ordr]

22. No. God, no.

Only centuries (or millennia) will do that.

[zorahopkins]

27. ME!

I am TOTALLY in favor of an immediate and complete withdrawal of ALL US forces from ANYWHERE in the country.

We are a REPUBLIC -- NOT and Empire!!!!

[Greyhound]

28. Here. n/t

[taterguy]

30. No because we need a reliable supply of oil

How do you propose that I get to work?

[The Stranger]

32. We buy it.

Next question.

[taterguy]

40. What happens when they refuse to sell it which they did in 1973?

[wuushew]

41. We could always conserve gasoline

car pool, take mass transit etc.

High gas prices would certainly be good for the environment.

[taterguy]

42. I work for a small company

How am I supposed to car pool?

Not everyone is lucky enough to walk in your shoes

[wuushew]

44. But gasoline is becoming ever scarcer anyway

Activities that may be economically viable now, may not be so in 50 or 100 years.

The only difference is the rate of change to which we begin the necessary economic reconfiguration. I rather not use violence to delay that transition. Using violence to minimize poverty is not ethical in my opinion and in any case such problems reflect problems of wealth distribution more any absolute scarcity.

[taterguy]

49. How did you get to work today?

Just curious

[The Stranger]

53. The reasons for the 1973 boycott had to do with U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

So the withdrawal has already taken care of that problem.

[taterguy]

55. Suppose they think of some other reason to not sell to us

BTW, a boycott is refusing to buy something, not refusing to sell something.

[The Stranger]

58. Come on, that isn't a response.

I suppose anything could happen -- oil might become free or run out completely.

[taterguy]

59. Here's what's happening

There's a finite amount of oil in the ME and the only thing that insures we get our share is our willingness to use violence to guarantee our access to it.

So when you tell me how I'm supposed to get to work I'll go along with your plan to get out.

[Ordr]

33. Complex, non-military, non-federal, commercial dealings with oil-producing nations.

[taterguy]

43. I guess we could rely on corporations to ensure all our energy needs

What could go (En)wrong?

[Ordr]

45. Ah, but there will be no government backing of these corporations.

That will allow for true competition in the marketplace for once.

[taterguy]

62. Doesn't your OP say "immediate"?

How are we going to immediately change the way that corporations have always done bidness in this country?

[The Stranger]

31. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

and Yes.

[leftofthedial]

34. uh, that'd be me

I'm no isolationist, but our military presence is a huge part of the problem and no part of any solution in that region.




there will be blood.

[LWolf]

36. I am. n/t

[magellan]

38. Aye. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. I agree...

and would add all US military bases across the world. If our military should need to act in our country's defense or as part of a UN/NATO force, we have that capability from American soil.

[Romulox]

47. YES! Time to outsource the job of policeman to the world. nt

[BB1]

51. Get out of Europe, too.

Just go away, pack up and leave.

The last welcome US soldier in NorthWest Europe was Elvis A. Presley.

(kidding guys, but still, come and pick up you're nukular bombs)

[Ordr]

52. I agree with us getting out of Europe (and everywhere else) as well.

However, would you want/expect us to come to your aid if you were attacked?
If so, why?

[BB1]

54. That's a trick question.

If you believe the Bushies of the 1920's were partly responsible for financing the Third Reich, why come to the rescue at all?

Besides, if we were attacked for showing our support to the US (as we have, and have) would you come to the rescue on your own account? Or would you scorn us for following?

Seems to me it's time to blow up NATO. It has no right to exsist anymore. Creepy club.

[Laughing Mirror]

56. A complete withdrawal from ALL countries

It will happen eventually anyway as the money runs out and the warriors look elsewhere.

[Booster]

57. I have a question. I know I could research it, but you guys always

are quicker with an answer. Do other countries have permanent bases in foreign countries or is it just the US? I read that the president of a So. American country wants to put a base here in the US and I thought that would be very interesting, but haven't seen anything since. Now, you know we're not about to let anybody to that - do we pay countries lots of bucks to put a base in their country?

[BB1]

61. We used to have a number of bases in Germany

'We' as in the Dutch. Then again, everybody and his dog had an armybase in Germany after WWII.

The French are holed up in Northen Africa, The Brits are in Gibraltar, and I suppose there are more examples.

I'm not sure if you have to pay up to put a base down. It usually attracts commercial activities, although all the US-army bases worldwide seem to have a Burger King, KFC AND a McDonald's on the premises. Yes, even in Iraq...

[Elidor]

60. I'm in favor of everyone learning to spell "withdrawal"

I hate to be the spelling nazi, but this one gets me like few others.