COMMENTS:
We'd have plenty of troops here to secure the border properly. The local economies of germany, japan, south korea, etc would take a significant (not crippling, but noticable) hit. And for the most part the world wouldn't be much affected. We don't really need troops in europe to fight off the soviet hordes any more. And if they soviets come back or some new threat arises, let europe deal with the problem by itself.
If it was a sudden pullout though south korea and taiwan would probably get screwed.
Let them go and see what happens, the fate of the world is not the responsibility of the USA.
Foreign military should only be in a country that requested it, not because it is expedient.
I'd be thrilled if we pulled our military out of these countries. I hope I live to see it.
for peeps chosing "all american corporations in other countries would be burned down." newsflash -- that would only result in massive unemployment in those countries. instead of being so quick to go for the shock choice, consider that of the entire world's output of about $60 trillion per year, the united states accounts for close to $13 trillion of that, or 22%.
of every single dollar in transacation, conducted in all currencies, daily, 80 cents of those transactional dollars are generated by, through, or in american corporations, banks and clearing houses. of every dollar invested in other countries, by foreign investors, 43 cents of those investments dollars are made by the united states.
i'm sure i'm being too literal on this and the choice is a joke, but when will people learn that there will be no burning or boycotting of anything american, that will not ultimately ruin the very nation doing the buring and boycotting. just the way it is.
to answer the question, who cares. we're in most countrie by invitation. south korea has massive protests saying they want us out. last year when we announced massive troop pull-outs from the korean peninsula, they staged massive "we support and love you america" rallies. would be funny if not so blatantly hypocricial.
The people of the world would be grateful, although their corrupt politicians and businessmen would miss the money, terribly.
The most immediate result of a global pullout of all American troops would be a destabilzation of many regions of the world.
Some areas would erupt in violence as different factions rushed in to fill the vacuum created by American withdrawal. Other regions and governments would transition smoothly to complete self-reliance on their own militaries.
One think we need to understand that the U.S. is the primary beneficiary of its worldwide deployment. Essentially, we are protecting markets; making the world safe for American companies. Where there is no economic interest -- either directly or indirectly -- there is no U.S. Military presence.
In the final analysis, the world might be better for such a withdrawal, but the U.S. would not.
Honestly dont know,wouldnt it help the US economy though?Then the US government wouldnt be spending billions of dollars on foreign installements and so could save it for the US economy and improve.
Griffon007 makes the most sensible argument.
It would hurt "defense" companies but they shouldn't be subsidized anyway.
America wouldn't have to bulid a fence on the southern border... soldiers could hold hands from CA. to TX.
Red Rover, Red Rover...
or, would that be brown?
by MO_ on Wed May 17, 06 5:53pm
[+]
Really it would have no effect in places like europe or japan but places that need our military bases like vietnam would probably start doing what ever they wanted like devoloping nuclear weapons. Also if im correct we have men in south korea which means that north korea would invade them by any means without stronger forces there. The american economy would be hurt but i dont think that bad. On the other hand countries could grow apart from us. Most will look at the u.s as not needed and the u.s will loose its place as the sole-superpower.
A lot less civilians would be killed either in training accidents (stupid unnecessary stunts) or in warfare, and there would be a hell of a lot less friendly fire incidents.
Just to put it into perspective the only casualties sustained by British Forces in Iraq for the first few months of conflict were due to friendly fire from the yanks.
|
