Why don't we return to neutrality?

[TSLexi]

Why don't we return to neutrality, instead of wasting taxpayer money playing world police?

A good way to raise money would be to sell our military equipment to whoever wants it, no matter what our opinion of them is.

An awesome way to raise incredible amounts of money would be to hire out our Armed Forces as mercenaries to whoever can pay.

Then our military can pay for itself, and with the rise in global conflict, we stand to make a healthy profit.

Although it might cause a slight morale issue for our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines to be fighting each other...

 

[syrenn]

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why don't we return to neutrality, instead of wasting taxpayer money playing world police?

A good way to raise money would be to sell our military equipment to whoever wants it, no matter what our opinion of them is.

An awesome way to raise incredible amounts of money would be to hire out our Armed Forces as mercenaries to whoever can pay.

Then our military can pay for itself, and with the rise in global conflict, we stand to make a healthy profit.

Although it might cause a slight morale issue for our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines to be fighting each other...

Hmm...

I'd say this is a joke but I've seen crazier things on this forum.

Try not to vote if you don't mind

 

[Picaro]

I don't recall any time when the U.S. was 'neutral', just a lot of revisionist fantasies that at one time in the mystic magical past we were. Even the Monroe Doctrine was only viable because it benefited the British and their Navy enforced it, not our own to any extent.

The rest of your post is just strange musings of some sort; most likely it will just result in those weapons being used to attack the U.S..

 

[Katzndogz]

We have a president that supports al quaeda. He's not neutral. As our titular leader, we aren't neutral either.

 

[dilloduck]

We can't afford to be neutral. We need the money.

 

[TSLexi]

Sell stuff to the Sierra Leone warlords, the people they're oppressing, all the little dictators, all the rebel groups, etc.

Create reasons for conflict. Sell equipment to both sides. Have our banks finance both sides. Make sure neither side can gain the upper hand, so their little brawl will continue, and they have to keep borrowing more money to buy more equipment.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We can't afford to be neutral. We need the money.

On the contrary, not being neutral is costing us money. When the dollar stops being the world's reserve currency, we are totally screwed.

 

[jwoodie]

Neutrality is a substitute term for Isolationist. We have tried it before and it doesn't work. Prior to our entry into WW1, were we "neutral" by shipping goods to Great Britain while respecting their blockade of German ports? Modernly, we give large amounts of aid to Israel and Egypt. If we cease all foreign aid to friendly countries, wouldn't that benefit their enemies? Easier in theory than in practice.

 

[Picaro]

Yes. The forward bases strategy developed by Keenan and implemented by Billy Mitchell and others has worked very well for a long time. There is no percentage in repeating history and thinking isolationism is going to work.

We could close some bases, certainly, I don't think Ramstein is very necessary any more, for example. Better to fight little wars overseas than let coalitions build up and have to fight massive ones.

As for military spending running amok, that's a domestic problem, caused by internal corruption; voters don't choose to do anything about it, so obviously it's not a problem, apparently.