Why are there 146,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Why are there 146,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?"

Socialism... it demands to set 'responsibility' for its defense on SOMEONE ELSE!

1. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.
   1. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth. Dennis Prager

We have a massive debt most of which can be attributed to Republicans refusing to pay for war after war after war.

ROFLMNAO!

100% of the US Debt... and I am speaking of 'EVERY CENT!' is a direct consequence of "The Great Society"..., which is to say 'social spending'. And this, without exception... and irrefutably so.

Now you'll of course deny such, and point to Spending on the US Military...

Of course, add up every cent spent on the US military since the mid-1960s... and you will not get anywhere near 18 trillion dollars. Now if you remove the money's pissed away as a consequence of The Great Society and the subsequent Trillions added to that addle-minded boondoggle since... and there you'll find 18 trillion dollars pissed away on subsidizing the idiots and propping up the power of the Ideological Left.

 

[Unkotare]

We should tell every country that has a US base that in one year we are closing those bases unless the host country agrees to: 1, pay all expenses related to the bases, including military pay and benefits, 2. charge no rent or utility expense to the US for those bases. 3. dedicate an equal number of host country military personnel to the defense of that country.

I agree. If they don't want to pay up them we need to bring our troops home and they can forget all the money we pay them for the priviledge of being in their country.

No way should we still be in Europe. Let the Europeans take care of their own security if they need to.

The only place I think we need troops is in South Korea and only because of that nutjob who runs North Korea.

Yup. I'd pull all US troops out of everywhere except for South Korea.

south korea has lots of money, they could pay for our protection.

South Korea DOES contribute quite a lot to our mutual defense agreement. We are there because it is in OUR national interests, numbskull.

 

[Unkotare]

We should tell every country that has a US base that in one year we are closing those bases unless the host country agrees to: 1, pay all expenses related to the bases, including military pay and benefits, 2. charge no rent or utility expense to the US for those bases. 3. dedicate an equal number of host country military personnel to the defense of that country.

I agree. If they don't want to pay up them we need to bring our troops home and they can forget all the money we pay them for the priviledge of being in their country.

No way should we still be in Europe. Let the Europeans take care of their own security if they need to.

The only place I think we need troops is in South Korea and only because of that nutjob who runs North Korea.

Yup. I'd pull all US troops out of everywhere except for South Korea.

south korea has lots of money, they could pay for our protection.

FACT takes so little time to look it up before you write you above comment!!!

S. Korea to pay over 800mln towards US military presence RT News
S. Korea to pay over $800 million towards US military presence
Seoul has struck a deal with the US to cover the costs of stationing 28,500 US troops in the country. The five-year cost-sharing plan stipulates South Korea pay 920 billion won ($866.5 million) in 2014, a 5.4 percent rise from the previous year.

800 million doesn't even BEGIN to pay for decades of direct US Military Support. Not even CLOSE.

Nor does it even BEGIN to reflect the benefit the US has enjoyed by having a dynamic, friendly trade partner in South Korea.

Nor does it take into account the other ways in which SK has "paid" for maintaining our relationship over the decades.

"Two S Korean teenagers run over US military vehicle

AFP

June 14, 2002


SEOUL - Two South Korean teenaged girls were killed on Thursday after being ran over by a wide US army armoured vehicle on an off-base training mission, US authorities said. Lieutenant General Daniel R.Zanini, commander of the Eighth US army in Korea, was quick to issue a "heartfelt" apology in an attempt to stop the tragedy from fueling anti-American sentiment.

"We are deeply saddened by this tragic event. I want to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the children and pledge our resolve to vigorously investigate this accident," he said. The incident occurred in Gwangjeok, 30 kilometers north of Seoul. The 3.66-metre wide armoured vehicle bridge carrier was in convoy participating in a field exercise. "The two girls were ran over from behind while walking along the edge of the 4.2 metre wide road," Wi Yang-Gon, a police investigator in the northern city of Uijeongbu, told AFP.

He blamed the vehicle driver for careless driving. "I think the driver failed to see them. They were killed on the spot." The pair were hit by the right track of the vehicle, designed for makeshift bridge transport,Yonhap news agency said, adding the vehicle tried to pass a slower-moving vehicle by using the shoulder of the road.

South Korean police identified the two 14-year-old middle school students as Shin Hyo-Soon and Shim Mi-Sun. They said the driver, Sergeant Mark Walker, was from a US infantry division. Police handed over the driver to US military police for investigation." - AFP

Two S Korean teenagers run over US military vehicle