I wonder why the US spend so much energy, time and money in countries like Israel, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan and Iraq. What does it gain from intervening in those countries' politics? Please, no hateful messages. I'm curious about it. I would appreciate American and international replies.
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15
In some cases lawmakers are genuinely worried about national security - their mandate to keep us safe. (For example, would we be able to defend ourselves from attack if we didn't have oil?)

In some cases lawmakers are obligated to their supporters to protect American corporate and business interests abroad.
If the interest is to ensure national security, isn't better to spend the money on a better defense system in and around the US? I agree with the decision to invade and paralyze countries that intend to use nuclear or weapons of mass destruction on others, like what some countries thought Iraq had. Now that it's proven otherwise, shouldn't the US get out now and use that money to improve its own economy? I think that's what the US is doing but I guess my question is why only now?

Actually, I'm nore interested in knowing why the US stations troops in countries like South Korea, Japan, I believe Israel too, and some countries in the world. What's the point?

Sorry if my questions sound stupid, as my knowledge of history is almost next to none. I'm reading and trying to understand better and this is part of the effort.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
There have been times in our history when sentiments ran strongly in favor of isolationism, and protectionist tarifs etc., but the global economy is now the reality, as are mutual defense treaties, like Nato.
After cold war USA made himself a most powerful state in world . USA goverment trying to keep this situation and destroy ( or make all possible problems ) all state, who may be threat for USA. As result world lost any respect to international law and many land trying to make nuclar bomb as insuranse. It may be dangerous for all world
Addendum: The world has a history of "hostile" military powers claiming that certain small defenseless countries really belong to them. Absent defense treaties, there's nothing to stop them from simply marching in and taking over. I don't want to mention current examples for obvious reasons, but there are a few ongoing. A past example would be Hitler's "annexing" of the Sudetenland, or Saddam's "annexing" of Kuwait. I can't speak for George and Don and Dick, but the presence of forces dispersed around the world can act as a deterrent to hostile action. I believe Russia has a zillion atomic subs in strategic locations. I guess the ocean belongs to everyone, but I don't think we have troops in a country without their permission.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Sorry, Isu, I didn't see your post. Your point is well taken. - A.
Woops! I don't mean to agree that the US is trying to destroy all countries that may be a threat to him/her. Mutually assured destruction worked fine during the cold war. I'm not sure that anyone wanted to destroy anyone back then. (If you destroy me you know I'm going to destroy you.) I know that when Kruschev put atomic missiles in Cuba, it scared the hell out of me!
Caribean crisis began , when USA put her missles in Tyrekey. Khrushow was angry and decide to put soviet missiles in Cuba.
Sorry, but I scared to hear about troops from another side of earth , massed near border of my land.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more