Why do countries station troops oversees?
958169
A country stations troops in foreign countries for many reasons. The biggest single reason is to protect their interests. Protecting their interests can be protecting natural resources such as oil or it can be protecting their military interests. \n\nThe United States has troops in Europe because they have been called on twice in the last century to defend Europe. It is easier to defend an ally when you have troops stationed in their country than it is to start from scratch. Just maintaining a logistics base can be critical in a time of need. \n\nTroops stationed in most places don’t threaten the local government. In fact, in most cases the troops’ presence in a country can go relatively unnoticed, but can be very effective in a time of need.
900920
The Phillipines are far from stable.\n\nAs part of the end of WWII Japan was forbidden to raise a military.  We are there to provide them with protection.  Japan wants us there.
231950
New Zealand did not support the American military intervention in Iraq. Currently, I understand, there are a number of NZ Defence Force personnel deployed as a Light Engineer Group to South-east Iraq to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 and working alongside a UK engineer unit.
894587
Our armed forces are much better suited to fighting conventional forces than insurgencies. This is true of most armies.
514391
The problem some Americans have with assigning troops to peacekeeping missions is that the American troops may have to take direction from the overriding agency such as the U.N. or NATO.  Americans don't like the concept of taking orders from someone else.  We want to give orders at all times, particularly in military situations.  Certainly, the U.S. military is the best funded and has the greatest manpower in the world, and it should use its power for good, but that seldom happens.  We should send troops to Darfur and East Timor, for instance, but they're busy getting blown up in Iraq at the moment.
255742
It pays a major part.  The US has military bases in numerous countries for this purpose.  It is projecting its powers thousands of mile from the US border.
926448
because each country has its own rules and laws and its own way of running things, like different types of governments. Democracy, Republic, Dictatorship and so on. Also because some countries arent open to the public (they don't want people coming in or maybe going out) in the long run there are many reasons
237953
a)To protect its own interests and resources and people. \nb)So that the ignorant and liberal can ask questions that make them feel self-important. \nc)Because we are the first country every other country asks for help.
75437
Military can easily become the most powerful body in a lesser developed nation. This is because there are no proper checks and balances, there may not be proper laws and even if these things are present the military can still take over using their superior organisation and advanced weapons and aircrafts. \n\nFrom that point a dictatorship starts in the country. As in any dictatorship the dictator can do almost anything. He can do whatever he wants. Sometimes he can even mislead the public and swing their support in his favour. He uses media to promote himself and restrict opponents. This makes it very difficult for political opponents. They can't pass their messages to the public. All opposition rallies and meetings are restricted. They cant even fight with the dictator coz they do not have the weaponry the military has. The only chance the country then has to get out of this hole is foreign help. A bigger country can help that nation overthrow that leader through their power.
955156
All of the above. Every branch has a different function. No other military in the world can be our equal.
534742
THE IDEA IS TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE UNSTABLE.SOME COUNTRIES CHANGE LEADERSHIP FOUR X IN A TWO YEAR PERIOD.IF IRAQ HAS THEM WHO CONTROLS THEM ? SUNNIS KURDS. IT HAS TO STOP OR WE'LL BE IN W.W.III IN A HEARTBEAT.
364967
We don't mind England having them. Its just the rest of the world that we have concluded is unstable. Why? Because they may use them on us.
879129
Our military is forward deployed to protect our strategic interests around the globe including the western Pacific (Japan).\n\nOut troops will be withdrawn or in the process of being withdrawn from Germany.\n\nCool simplistic question, dude.
34991
Because they are a hop, skip, and a jump away from Afganistan where we have troops already deployed. On the other side you have India who would GLADLY help the US with Pakistan. All to do with self preservation not shared political values.
746558
We still have troops in Germany, South Korea, Philippines, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and numerous other countries.  WWII has been over since the mid 1940s.  It's called strategic positioning.  Removing our troops from that area puts us at a great disadvantage strategically.  I don't know why people have a hard time understanding that there are people/groups who don't like the United States of America and are looking for opportunities for our defeat.
253328
It is not that we like to interfere with the "internal" affairs of other nations. We only interfere when there is no other viable alternative. We entered Afganistan and took out their reigning government because they attacked us. We entered Iraq and removed their reigning government because Saddam was torturing and murdering is own people, his own civilians. We have not invaded and occupied any country in the history of our nation with the exception of America before we took it over as our own. We are not a occupying Army in Iraq or Afganistan because we are not controlling the nation with tyranny and oppression...we are doing the oposite by helping the locals govern themselves.
789296
Well I think you clearly answered your own question or maybe you have two seperate questions: \n\nCan the UN legally force a country to peform a military withdraw? \n\nCan the UN, if found to have legitimate power to do the later, do they have the "balls" to do so.. \n\nAnswer, NO and NO. The UN can apply "sanctions"(which we know how effective those are) but the history of the UN never was one of military force, rather a collection of governed nations helping one another provide assistance throughout the world. \n\nNATO on the other hand does have a standing military and was created for a totally seperate reason alltogether.