@The Nexerus our goal is to foster the well-being of the nations within our influence as long as we are fit to do so. We have the budget and the revenue to do so. These other countries in that we have military bases in, most of them do not. When they are as prosperous economically as the US, then we should consider pulling out.

@Vilageidiotx

if we are not imperialistic by name, why is it that all our actions show that we are? -- That we do have a responsibility, symbolically and financially to the world's well-being?
Why do we have more aircraft carriers than all the other nations combined? Why do we have such a big budget for humanitarian aid? Why is our professional military such that we can basically dethrone nearly any national leader that we deem unfit?
Don't tell me we do it simply to protect ourselves. We develop a 100 million dollar fighter just so we can protect ourselves better? We fight wars in asia and middle east simply to protect our interests but not the world's interests? We form coalitions with dozens of other countries simply to borrow their military strength in a desperate, sneaky attempt at self-benefit?

Umm... Germany and Japan are not financially prosperous?

I'm not going to lie... I feel like I am being trolled.

<snip quote>

Maintaining the worlds well-being? By bombing it to shit?

Hahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahhahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahaahahahhaahaahahhahahahah. Hah.

You're not serious, are you?

Europe is pretty prosperous. Some might even argue that in many European countries, folks are better off than the average American. Same's true for other countries defended by the U.S., such as Japan and South Korea. Germany and Japan, two of the countries most extensively occupied by the United States, are the third and fourth largest economies in the world. The only countries richer than them in that sense are China and the United States itself. The UK and France are right behind, at fifth and sixth place. Why, then, is the United States under any obligation to defend them? They are clearly financially capable of defending themselves. Is your stipulation that the the U.S. should be occupying every country with a smaller economy than the United States economy? Because that would be literally every country on the planet.

Let Germans defend Germany, Japanese defend Japan and Frenchmen defend France. Even ignoring any questions of imperialism, it just doesn't make sense for American soldiers to be stationed in any of those countries. It's not good for them, since you're never going to be able to learn to fend for yourself is someone's always taking care of you, and it's not good for the United States either, because it's left with the bill. No one benefits.

@The Nexerus
Let me get this straight. Not only do you want us to pull out of Europe, but you want us to pull all our military forces out of South Korea and Japan as well? So basically, you want America to become 1920s and early 1930s isolationist America -- the very same America that allowed Hitler to rise in power?

And you want a President, AKA Donald Trump, that will put us on that road?

Isolationist suggests that we won't even get involved in global conflicts. We're talking about cutting what is undoubtedly unnecessary spending for military bases where they are not needed.

Ok. Disbanding American military bases in Japan and Germany. Don't know about Germany, but what this will do is crash the Japanese economy. The Japanese economy sucks in the first place. It's been in a 20 year stagnation. Now, they have to suddenly pay for their own defense. Can you imagine the fear in the typical Japanese wage worker now that the American protective umbrella is gone and their economy is plummeting? You just caused the Great Japanese Depression. Who knows, maybe this is just the thing that is needed to jump start the Japanese economy, some type of ironic nationalistic responsibility thing, but I don't think so.

Is caring about your own well-being and your national problems so important that you're willing to forfeit and harm others by pulling away the normal help you usually give them?

We don't owe Japan anything. Why on earth, when the American middle class is collapsing and we are falling behind the world in the affordability of healthcare, is Japan's ability to surpass us supposed to be important to me? Do we get something in return? Like, if Japan will pay for a single payer healthcare system in the United States then fine, they can have bases. But otherwise, we aren't some geopolitical Jesus. There is no reason to sacrifice the United States so that other countries might out-thrive us.

I'm a realist. Our power only exists if we can use it, and we can only use it if we have reliable staging areas. For instance, Rammstein AFB in Germany saved tens of thousands of soldiers' lives, as the primary channel for CasEvac from the Middle East. Without Rammstein, we lose every war we fight in SW Asia or Africa. That means we have no power over SW Asia or Africa. That means we have no bearing whatsoever on what happens there -- and call me crazy, but I kind of like having clout.

Take Japan. Are we OBLIGATED to defend them? Actually yes, by the terms of their surrender and numerous other treaties, we are obligated, but pretend we're not. What those bases give us, is the real right to exercise power in the Pacific theater. Nobody goes to war in Asia while we own the Pacific unless we say so. So what has that gotten us? $300 HDTVs, for one thing, and reliable shipping to the world's biggest trade hub in Singapore.

TLDR -- US bases overseas aren't a cost, they're an export. They're a large component in a global trading economy, which enables basically the entire economy to function.

well, that solves it. i hope everyone is happy now. it's in america's self-interests to have bases all over the world. it grants us an economic and militaristic advantage

I'm not convinced that the price of maintaining that large of a presence is offset by the amount of trade we would lose without them, because I just don't see what trade we would be losing in the first place. It isn't like the lack of US naval bases (If we are required by treaty to have bases in Japan then so be it, but that's just part of the whole) would cause China to cut off trade - they can't afford it any more than we can. And it's not like, without nearby bases, we would be helpless. I live about an hours drive from Whitman Airforce Base, and the stealth bombers there have the capacity to fly missions to the middle east from here in the middle of the country.

And what would be the purpose of our system of alliances if our allies need our presence to be effective on even a basic level? I'm sure, in the rare event of a legitimate war between major powers, that our allied countries would be perfectly fine with our setting up temporary bases. It wouldn't be an ideal situation I grant you, but the unlikelihood of a war between major powers in the modern world seems to offset this.

If Iraq taught us one thing, it is the price of maintaining an Empire shouldn't be shrugged off. That is realism - we can't get caught up in all the emotions of being top dog and forget to look after our own health. I'm not saying "Fuck it, disband the military and get out the bongo drums." I get that we need to be able to defend our interests, but we can't take that so far that we become overextended. Especially when it isn't 1955 and our domestic situation is declining.

I should clarify. "Realism" is a school of thought in global politics -- it's a confusing term, and here, I mean it in that context, not in the more obvious/douchy context.

Now then. I'm really not worried about China, at all. I am however concerned about several other states in the region -- Phillipine islamist terrorism, Burma, oh, and probably not a big deal or anything but nuclear goddamn Kim Jong Un. Can any of these things beat us? Lol. No. Not a chance in hell. But they can hurt our allies, or help our rivals (rivals, not enemies -- China would love to be a regional superpower, and we'd honestly rather not give them that much of a vote).

Now for the fun part -- the lessons we learned in Iraq. First things first -- we learned that credible threats of force work. Shortly after Bush invaded Iraq, Gaddafi disarmed his nuclear weapons and Kim Jong-Il did the same. Yeah, Kim opened the program up later, but he backed down the minute we started looking his way, because when Bush was president, we didn't make idle threats. Contrast that with Obama's 'line in the sand,' and the fallout -- which isn't done yet, btw -- which includes, for starters, ISIS, and almost certainly nuclear Iran.

The real lesson of Iraq is this -- no matter how much ^all that^ helps and/or hurts us respectively, the American public does not care. Not enough to do anything about it. We are too weak to maintain an effective foreign policy, and show no signs of getting any stronger. And since this is a government by the people for the people -- that's the only vote that counts in the end. And look -- when it comes to whether or not we should be starting or continuing unpopular wars, democracy FTW. That's only fair. But what you're talking about is dismantling the progress of hundreds of years of foreign policy that put us on top, and crippling our ability to get back to that later, while also destroying any credibility we have to our friends and, worse, to our enemies. So, no. I guess you could say I'm not a fan.

And on an academic note:

And what would be the purpose of our system of alliances if our allies need our presence to be effective

What you're describing here is known, in global politics, as Liberalism. Which again, just to be confusing, shares a name with something completely different in everyday use, but I don't make up the terms.

I think we have to agree to disagree at this point, at least regarding what we want to see the state pay for.

She's russian.