Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Western world maintains troops to "secure resources" and continued comfortable lifestyle for its people.
Often, the United States will just take the lead and the blame for such actions while Euros nestle snugly and smugly against it, while enjoying the benefits of same.
Yes but NATO itself is becoming deeply flawed. It used to be quite clear what NATO was at one time, it was a Defence Pact to counter the Warsaw Pact and prevent Soviet Forces from attacking the West.
Today it's less clear what NATO is about, there are few credible military threats to Europe, whilst NATO is increasingly fragmented on issues such as becoming embroiled in invasion of countries such as Iraq or even Afghanistan or Civil Wars such as Libya.
Many European countries didn't sign a treaty to be an World Policeman based on American Foreign Policy objectives, they originally signed a treaty to defend their homeland from attack.
Many European countries didn't sign a treaty to be an World Policeman based on American Foreign Policy objectives, they originally signed a treaty to defend their homeland from attack.
Many European countries enjoy the peace and security and are fat with access to strategic resources because of "The American World Policeman" and those (like the UK) who do the dirty work.
After all, who do you think really benefits from Middle Eastern oil? Certainly not the United States, who gets the vast majority of its oil from elsewhere, and is soon to be oil independent.
Hint: Might need to look at what companies and countries received Iraqi oil contracts post-American/UK war mongering.
The US is making budget cuts, Europe is more than capable of defending it's self and the Russians are no longer a major super power. Time to go in my opinion.
The Euro-idiots have munitions for 1 week of sustained combat. That's because socialism and entitlements has eaten up their budgets.
If the US would quit playing policeman for the world, I'd say close them. But as long as we keep going to war, we need those hospitals that we have in Europe for the troops.
If the US would quit playing policeman for the world, I'd say close them. But as long as we keep going to war, we need those hospitals that we have in Europe for the troops.
The Poles want us in Poland. I say we go there and pull out of Germany.
Our garrison mentality is foolish and costly, plus it protects the lie of European Fabian socialism as somehow superior economically, since we take the lion's share of defense costs for the entire western portion of the Eurasian continent, leaving them all free to pour more of their GDPs into the nanny state and then act morally superior. I would LOOOOOVVVVVVEEEEE to let Europe handle all of their own defense for a change. Let them shoulder 100% of the cost, and oh btw, say au revoir and auf weidersein to like $3 billion of US money being poured into local economies via troop paychecks and hiring local workers to keep those bases operating.
Save us money, reduce how thin our military is stretched and stick Europe with a big fat "stick up for yourselves, see ya" tab? Yeah, that can't happen soon enough imho.
Stay, In fact build more bases. We need to make sure the world is scared shi-less that the us military is right around the corner ready to drop bombs in minutes!
Why are they still here and who are they defending us from????
Ask the State Department. Obviously, not attacks like the one in Benghazi.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.