What would the world be like if US pulled out of everywhere?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thing is even if they fill the power vaccume like I think they would if we became isolationist, it will not stop the feelings of hatred. Say we pull our forces out, shrink our armed forces, etc. Now we are weaker. People like Osama will still want to get us. They will continue to get want to get us untill they die. They will attack us, then what? We have to retaliate. The only way isolationism MAY work is if we agree to take blows and hits from terrorists for years to come untill the next generations do not have it out to get us.

My point is that if china filled the power vaccume, the world would degrade. They are physically not able to better the world.

Al Qaeda's support base will be destroyed because we are leaving the arabs and muslims alone.

Bottom line is that let these certain nations or people blame us. LET THEM, that is the basis of the Freedoms that we have in the U.S. I personally do not care if others blame us for the problems. You know why? because I know the truth, much of our nation knows the truth, and a lot of the world knows the truth. Maybe they do not admit it, but WHO CARES. No matter your politcal thinking or what side your on, good people do the right thing. As long as we do what we think is right and the benefit to the world is clear, there is no reason not to do it.

Because when there is blame, especially among the arab world, there will be droves of people joining Al Qaeda. And they will all attack the US. If you want to be safe, leave those crazies alone. Take away their pretexts for attacking us.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
It sorta depends on what you mean by "pulling out". Does it just mean withdrawing forces? Or does it mean withdrawing (stated and unstated) commitments to intervene around the world. Also, what about Naval Forces. If US forces were repositioned to the US and a policy of more isolationism were entered into (perhaps including decommissioning the US carriers), I think there would be impact on the world. Other countries which now spend less on defense, would likely spend more, would develop closer ties for mutual defense, etc. Potentially, "bad actors" might be more aggressive given a lack of US naval precense around the world. I don't know wether the results would be "not that bad" or whether there would be significant bad effects. Hard to tell. Those are the two sides of the coin, though.

I meant pulling out forces. I think the world wouldn't be worse off without the US active interventionism, but it sure would be a worse place if its defensive alliances are broken. Especially their alliances with non-nuclear countries that could face nuclear countries (Japan and Korea come to mind today, but defensive alliances with countries near Pakistan and India would be wise too)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I meant pulling out forces. I think the world wouldn't be worse off without the US active interventionism, but it sure would be a worse place if its defensive alliances are broken. Especially their alliances with non-nuclear countries that could face nuclear countries (Japan and Korea come to mind today, but defensive alliances with countries near Pakistan and India would be wise too)

How about Naval forces? Both the level and the placement?

[Spiffor]

I think the most important role the US should have, as a defensive ally, would be deterrance. This means to be prepared in areas where **** might happen in short notice (Korea obviously, but that may be Iraq if Iran has ambitions, that may be Thailand if Burma begins to be hostile, etc.), so, sheer speed sin't really an issue in these situations.
It is a rare occurence that a conflict breaks without any foresign.

And it includes nuclear deterrence too.

[Grandpa Troll]

It would be a lot like WW2 where we were needed to intervene and rescue poor souls from nations unable to cope with Military intervention from other countries far too strong.....wait..isnt that we have been doing thus far?

I know, I know, pansey-waisted folks who dont have the stomach for war, would rather sit back and let others be overrun.

Me, i say we are called upon a multitude of times and this particular time we asked others to get behind us....well, smell of fear aside, not many reactions from all sorts of countries that if the US had not been there, maybe they wouldnt have been here to cry about it.




I say ifin someone dont like the US intervening, move. I say the US has the right to protect its citizens against enemies, Foreign and domestic, threats real and percieved.

Should the US stop intervening? Nope

Should we pull out of everywhere?

Nope.


Thats my $0.02 worth.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[I Am Jeff]

I guess it is possible that the normal person to stop caring if the US pulls out and becomes isolationist. I just do not think it will happen overnight, or even years. Remember Osama is one rich man. I do not know if they have his assets, or some of his assets. But he, if he is alive, has the money to cause terrorism. Yes remove troops and not care and terrorism will subside, but it will be slow.

I know many people and nations think we are wrong. Trust me I watch the news, read articles on it, etc. But individuals have to do what they believe in. This then leads to that a nations has to do what it believes in as right.

America has been attacked by a rag-tag organization who grew big first because of its wild popularity. It is time to stop their popularity, and to achievethis, the US has to become popular again.

I agree with you there. The thing is being isolationist will not make you popular. Who are the popular people in school? Not the person who sits in the corner. It is the active and outspoken person. It is the person that is the Footbal team captain, etc. To become popular there is more then removing troops that will help.

1. Solving the Israel/Palestine conflict. I feel that we will have more progress there then ever before. I know it can be solved.

2. Set up a new Iraq that the Iraqies like. If we can get Iraq to show how happy it is with the new situation I believe we can gain a lot of popularity among other arab nations. If other nations see the good that came out of it, they may try to change their tune.

3. The U.S. needs to act not only on personal interest but on world interest. We need to prove that we are not just doing things for personal gain, but for the better of all. This then coincides with the fact that other nations of the world need to get the same attitude. If the U.S. were to take this attitude it would be moot if the rest of the world does not think the same.


I also think no matter what we do, there will still be bad nations that want to cause trouble. One that comes to mind is North Korea. Their goal is get money from the U.S. They threaten to get money from the U.S. So as long as their is money or some other perk that can be gotten from the U.S. (or any other nation), there will be other nations trying to get free goodies.

Yes the U.S. could possible out, but as I said before (I think), it would hurt the world because of the power vaccume. I just do not see Europe at this point filling it, and really the only other choice is China as I said before. And I think we agree China is not capable. So the only choice I see is that the U.S. stay, for better or worse. To be a world power, you need to have troops deployed. Personally I do not see how troops in Europe hurt anyone. Or how troops in many other nations hurt them. From what I know, we have permission to have our troops there.

After writting this I realize that I have gotten terribly off topic, most of what I have written was about why we can not pull out or why we should not. Or about how to make the U.S. popular abroad. Although I did answer the original questions. I just do not think it will benefit anyone, but the U.S. taxpayers if the U.S. pulled out.

[Q Classic]

the us should pull out of south korea.

why? because it'll shut the conservatives up, please the communists, and teach the young koreans a small lesson.

and it'll help wipe the koreans off the face of this planet, which is a good thing, i suppose.

[I Am Jeff]

I think the South Koreans want to be united with the North. That is one reason why I think they are mad at us.

[gsmoove23]

It would be a sick demented world because we'd be living in the fevered imaginations of some our most conservative polytoners.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think the most important role the US should have, as a defensive ally, would be deterrance. This means to be prepared in areas where **** might happen in short notice (Korea obviously, but that may be Iraq if Iran has ambitions, that may be Thailand if Burma begins to be hostile, etc.), so, sheer speed sin't really an issue in these situations.
It is a rare occurence that a conflict breaks without any foresign.

And it includes nuclear deterrence too.

I am not sure that we are willing to be the fireman or the doctor that you only call when you need him. And don't worry about otherwise. That was the rationale for leaving troops in Europe. If we are going to decide to play the policeman role (to some extent), we will also want some pre-positioned troops and ships patrolling globally.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think it would have that much effect, since US troops are not the bulk of peacekeeping forces (except in Iraq, and maybe Afghanistan, but I'm not sure of it). So, it wouldn't make internal chaos more likely or not.

There are two areas where US troops have a cold-war-like deterrent role to foreign agression : Europe and East Asia. In Europe, they are now useless, since Russia doesn't intend to invade anytime soon. In East Asia, the pulling out of troops would probably give Kim more incentive to start a war and wreak havoc. Even if Kim doesn't do this, it will give much more leeway to China once it becomes militarily ambitious, and the pulling out of there could help starting a war too.

I don't think US troops stationed in the ME have any effect on the order/chaos there. And I'm not aware of any massive US stationaing in Africa.

In short : should the US pull out of everywhere in the world, things would be mostly unchanged, except in eastern Asia where war and chaos would be more likely.

for the most part I agree (not as sure about ME)

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In East Asia, the pulling out of troops would probably give Kim more incentive to start a war and wreak havoc. Even if Kim doesn't do this, it will give much more leeway to China once it becomes militarily ambitious, and the pulling out of there could help starting a war too.

It doesn't make a difference. The token force in RoK doesn't do anything at all - how would that help slow any hypothetical DPRK aggression?

[yavoon]

it would create a possibility that the DPRK would end up killing americans. which would incite the entire american population more than then they might otherwise be.

[Frankychan]

If the US pulleed out of everywhere and became isolationist...

...I think the Arab world would still be pissed at us and find some other reason to blame "The Great Satan".

[Harovan]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The presence of 200,000 soldiers and their dependents, plus the local people employed by the US Army, has quite a large effect on the German economy. Withdrawal of the US personel and the their dependents, coupled with the unemployment of thousands of locals, would be like removing a fairly large city from the German economy. Doubtless this would cause severe recession if not depression if quickly done. Doubtless, nothing good can come of this.

You are greatly overestimating these forces. The bulk already withdrawed in the 90s. There are barely 70,000 soldiers plus their families left, who most of the time are abroad. The numbers you may have heard, are obsolete, and the often mentioned damage to our economy, if it's an issue at all, happened long ago. I think it's time for the rest to go home, too.