• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Troop Deployment

How should the United States deploy Troops?

  • Stop being the world police, we need them here, all troops need to come home right away

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • Slowly bring all troops deployed around the world home

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • Strategically place troops in areas where they are needed most for security

    Votes: 15 46.9%
  • We need more not less international involvement

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How do you think the United States should deploy their troops?

Sorry guys option 2 should say "Slowly" not "Slowing"
 
Last edited:
They need to all be brought home as quickly as possible and redeployed along the US Borders and in place of the TSA and Border Patrol/ICE/INS employees at all entry points into the United States.
 
Some troops need to be abroad, while some should be in the US. However to bring all troops home would be stupid, after all there is little to no chance of the US being invaded. Rather we should put troops throughout the world so that we can respond to emergencies quickly.
 
my heart says option 1, as in right now, beginning today.

my head says option 2, with "slowly" being defined as over the course of 2 to 5 years.
 
I don't think we need to be the World Police and, in fact, I don't think we are. Our wars, invasions, etc. have been to profit this Nation, not to protect anyone.

If you opt to place troops strategically, you wind up with what we have now. Straits of Hormuz. Around Vietnam. Bering Strait. Japan, Indian Ocean, and on and on, ad infinitum. Generals, Admirals, Senators, Corporations, Contractors and all can name and present nice sounding arguments for security where it butters their bread. Enough.

Fer' 'Krissake, we need to spend money here, not overseas. We need a National jobs industry, not a military defense/offense industry.
 
We should deploy our armed forces in whenever and where ever we need to, so as to keep small wars from turning into world wars.
 
Some troops need to be abroad, while some should be in the US. However to bring all troops home would be stupid, after all there is little to no chance of the US being invaded. Rather we should put troops throughout the world so that we can respond to emergencies quickly.

You mean maintain the 'status quo'? :)

Paul
 
How do you think the United States should deploy their troops?

Sorry guys option 2 should say "Slowly" not "Slowing"

Strategic deployment to protect American and international interests.
 
You mean maintain the 'status quo'? :)

Somthing like that, maybe with some tweaks here and there, but nothing major. The way we are set up now lets us have the ability to react to a situation quickly pretty much anywhere in the world. Which is good.
 
Last edited:
We should deploy our armed forces in whenever and where ever we need to, so as to keep small wars from turning into world wars.

You know how much I hate agreeing with you? Sometimes I have to though, and this is exactly correct. There is a reason for bases in various places around the world, and for forward deployed naval elements. It is so we can rapidly respond to crises that arise that effect our interests around the world. In the modern world, we no longer have the luxury of thinking that things that happen elsewhere won't effect us.
 
How do you think the United States should deploy their troops?

Sorry guys option 2 should say "Slowly" not "Slowing"

With exception to Afghanistan I say bring them all home immediately. They can be placed on our borders. Let the world solve their own problems.
 
I have no problem leaving some troops around the world in places that are a direct and imminent threat to the U.S. interests, but we've played world policeman for far too long, we need to get the hell out of most overseas bases and let other countries handle their own defense. We need to seriously downsize our military, it's costing us too much and we're getting little or nothing out of it in return, except pointless, costly wars that get us nothing.
 
no vote
I totally disagree with the third option.
Of our "troops", 90% are for war; 10% are for peace.
Lets reverse these and, for the first time in our existence, lets go to peace..
Of course, the above numbers are fabricated, IMO, a man with a gun = war; a man with love = peace.
Whatever happened to the "peaceniks" of 50 years ago ?
 
1 or 2 would be fine with me, the military is unnecessarily oversized and overfunded, We're investing more money in militarism than "Defense".
 
You know how much I hate agreeing with you? Sometimes I have to though, and this is exactly correct. There is a reason for bases in various places around the world, and for forward deployed naval elements. It is so we can rapidly respond to crises that arise that effect our interests around the world. In the modern world, we no longer have the luxury of thinking that things that happen elsewhere won't effect us.

You have no idea how much I hate agreeing with this statement because sometimes I think we jump the gun and get involved in other countries that we shouldn't. But the geopolitical realities are that if we don't protect US and allied interests from aggressors the world would be amok. And I think there has been an unprecedented amount of world peace since WWII because of the size and strength of the US military. Nobody starts what they know we'll finish and a big stick keeps the peace. But we can have a more effective force without the sheer size and waste anymore. Military contracting is big business in DC and their lobbyists are some of the most competitive.
 
Bring them home now. It does no good to have all these troops all over the world, but to feed fuel to terrorism.
 
Bring them home now. It does no good to have all these troops all over the world, but to feed fuel to terrorism.

You can't just bring troops home with a snap of the fingers. It takes years. Consider Afghanistan: We used Pakistan ports to get here. Today we're not the best of friends with Pakistan, and can't use their ports. We would have to build an exit....but to where....and remember that terrorists would be attacking such an exit, so more troops would be needed.
 
You know how much I hate agreeing with you? Sometimes I have to though, and this is exactly correct. There is a reason for bases in various places around the world, and for forward deployed naval elements. It is so we can rapidly respond to crises that arise that effect our interests around the world. In the modern world, we no longer have the luxury of thinking that things that happen elsewhere won't effect us.

This is the ideal, IMO too. But I question whether the US political system can maintain bases around the world without using them to police the world. If they exist, we will be involved where we ought not be. If we accept this, then we are left with two options: become the police of the world or completely withdraw our troops from these foreign stations. Since we cannot afford to be the police right now, I would rather we build a strong defense at home today. This truly isn't the ideal for me, but I do not see a better realistic option.
 
What if we don't want to come home?
Not your call. The president is called upon to do what's best for American interests as a whole, not soley the Military's. Extended troop deployment in the Middle East does absolutely nothing to make us safer at home, let alone the massive costs involved.
 
Not your call.

Not yours either, but this poll solicits individual opinions as though is was our call to make, each of us. So, what if we don't want to come home?

If it were up to me, troops would be repositioned for our next engagement, but not brought home. What a mess that would be.
 
Last edited:
What the world, and our nation should do is establish an "United Nations" whose goal is a better world, world peace.
Its not right that any one nation should be the Earth's policeman.
I would situate this new UN in Jerusalem....And to hell with those silly temples(Islamic and Israeli), they should be dead and buried - forever.
No vote, of course, I do not care for the choices.
 
Back
Top Bottom