View Poll Results: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, drastically

    64 68.09%
  • Yes, just slightly

    12 12.77%
  • I don't know

    4 4.26%
  • No, the current situation is fine

    2 2.13%
  • No, even more troops should be deployed overseas

    12 12.77%
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 181

Thread: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  1. #101
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    ..and which state has threatened US borders in the past?

    the reason the USA has over 1000 military bases in over 140 countries all over the world is not to protect its soveriegn borders

    its to protect its corporate tentacles

    and as we all know Corporatism is the ultimate form of fascist tyrannical slavery

    this is what the USA exports and stands for on the global stage - corporate tyranny and fascism

    Oh good anti-capitalist conspiracy retard to be the turd in the punch bowl.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #102
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, New York
    Last Seen
    03-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    551

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Oh good anti-capitalist conspiracy retard to be the turd in the punch bowl.
    Almost every post I see you make is just ad hominem after ad hominem.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    And others are currently supporting operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region. We are sending a detachment of Marines to Libya, for example, and we try to maintain that global rapid-response capability, especially in the littoral regions. In order to do that, you require forward deployed facilities, supplies, and personnel.



    I've actually been part of that task force, so you're not exactly telling me anything I don't know. CJTF-HOA and naval affiliates are a perfect example of what I am talking about - without a forward deployed American presence (with, it's worth pointing out, depends upon those bases in Europe for support) in that region, that effort doesn't exist, and the result is spinning instability and violence in a region that is a geopolitical choke point. You think insurance on a tanker doesn't price in to a gallon of gas?

    And no, it doesn't show who the "real" threats to the global economy in the 21st century is. It shows who we are currently authorized (sometimes) to shoot.

    Explain to me why we need our current number of troops in Germany, UK, and Italy in order to maintain the 5th fleet in the Indian Ocean/Red Sea.
    Last edited by Voltaire X; 09-13-12 at 02:08 PM.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Originally Posted by Klown
    ..and which state has threatened US borders in the past?

    the reason the USA has over 1000 military bases in over 140 countries all over the world is not to protect its soveriegn borders

    its to protect its corporate tentacles

    and as we all know Corporatism is the ultimate form of fascist tyrannical slavery

    this is what the USA exports and stands for on the global stage - corporate tyranny and fascism
    True, One major reason for this is because Americans are a greedy people. We(Americans, not me) as a whole, are never satisfied and because of this, We(America) are always ready to invade and attack other countries to satisfiy our lusts for more wealth from oil, gold, or just to de-stabilize them or whatever.

    It's a reason Muslims say "Death to America"..it's because we highjack their oil and don't care whose upset about it.

    That's their sand, so therefore, their oil. America has it's own oil, but so greedy and pompous, would prefer to atack a country that has it, to keep from breaking ground on some national Park land, citing "It's too beautiful to mess up"

    Remember the kid that would come to the playground with their new bike, but wouldn't let nobody ride it, but at the same time they wanted to ride everybody elses bike? That's America.

  4. #104
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING

    Right now the US military has:

    90,000+ troops in Afghanistan
    50,000+ troops in Germany
    35,000+ troops in Japan
    28,000+ troops in South Korea
    15,000+ troops in Kuwait
    10,000+ troops in Italy
    9,000+ troops in the UK
    etc.

    These troops are deployed for a variety of reasons. Most of these countries are in strategic locations (West Germany was our frontline against the Soviets), but the Cold War is long over. I think our deployments are quite excessive. In fact, I think that at least 90% of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other users think about this.


    Also the source for these numbers, from the Department of Defense itself, is here:

    http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personne...ry/hst1112.pdf
    Several random points:

    1. I was surprised the Korea numbers are so low.

    2. Yes, officially, the Cold War is over, but it's naive to think the threat is completely gone. Plus, Germany serves a purpose as something of a centrally-located and safe staging area.

    3. Having said #1 & #2, I do think we should reduce greatly, though I do not think we should eliminate in all areas completely. We still have legitimate interests that we need to be concerned with.

    4. I'm more concerned about inserting ourselves into seemingly everything that comes down the line. Just because something happens somewhere does not mean that we should feel obligated to respond.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #105
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, New York
    Last Seen
    03-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    551

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
    True, One major reason for this is because Americans are a greedy people. We(Americans, not me) as a whole, are never satisfied and because of this, We(America) are always ready to invade and attack other countries to satisfiy our lusts for more wealth from oil, gold, or just to de-stabilize them or whatever.

    It's a reason Muslims say "Death to America"..it's because we highjack their oil and don't care whose upset about it.

    That's their sand, so therefore, their oil. America has it's own il, but so greedy and pompous, would prefer to atack a country that has it, to keep from breaking ground on some national Park land, citing "It's too beautiful to mess up"

    Remember the kid that would come to the playground with their new bike, but wouldn't let nobody ride it, but at the same time they wanted to ride everybody elses bike? That's America.
    What world do you live in? What countries is the US "taking" oil out of? It's their sand, therefore their oil, like you said. So explain to me which country we're stealing the oil from. We didn't get any oil out of the Iraq war. Afghanistan has about 1% of the oil Saudi Arabia does, and it's barely being pumped (and not by us).

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    What world do you live in? What countries is the US "taking" oil out of? It's their sand, therefore their oil, like you said. So explain to me which country we're stealing the oil from. We didn't get any oil out of the Iraq war. Afghanistan has about 1% of the oil Saudi Arabia does, and it's barely being pumped (and not by us).
    You got some facts to back up this claim^^?

    I got Military friends telling me the TRUTH believe it or not. Not just Afghan Oil, but Iraq Oil too. It's a pipeline America is after. all the way from Iran to Kuwait.

  7. #107
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Gov. Gary Johnson Releases Statement Regarding Libya Attack

    September 12, 2012

    Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement regarding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya:

    It is tragic when Americans serving their country are murdered, and we both mourn their loss and honor their service.

    Part of honoring that service is to ask the obvious question: What U.S. interest is being served by putting our people – and our money – in places where U.S. personnel can be killed by extremists over a video? We launched millions of dollars worth of missiles to bring down Gaddafi, and this is what we get. We hail and encourage the outbreak of an Arab Spring in Egypt, send them billions of dollars we can’t afford, — and our embassy is breached and our flag desecrated.

    In Afghanistan, we continue to put our troops in harm’s way 10 years after our post-9/11 mission was complete. Why?

    The airwaves are filled today with political chest-pounding and calls for decisive action. The most decisive and prudent action we can take today is to stop trying to manage governments and peoples on the other side of the globe who don’t want to be managed, get our people out of impossible situations that have no direct U.S. interest, and immediately stop sending money to regimes who clearly cannot or will not control their own countries.

    Protecting America with a strong national defense and a rational foreign policy is our leaders’ most basic responsibility. But let us not confuse national security with senseless intervention where our interests are clearly not being served.

  8. #108
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, New York
    Last Seen
    03-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    551

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
    You got some facts to back up this claim^^?

    I got Military friends telling me the TRUTH believe it or not. Not just Afghan Oil, but Iraq Oil too. It's a pipeline America is after. all the way from Iran to Kuwait.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/bu...pagewanted=all

    Looks like the free market is deciding who gets the oil fields. Like it should. Otherwise, why would the Russians be getting a major oilfield?


    And guess who the first country to get access to tap into Afghanistan's oil reserves are? Not us:

    Afghanistan, China sign first oil contract



    Again, the free market decided.




    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Gov. Gary Johnson Releases Statement Regarding Libya Attack

    September 12, 2012

    Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement regarding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya:

    I'm seeing Gary Johnson speak next week. So excited.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-30-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    428

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/bu...pagewanted=all

    Looks like the free market is deciding who gets the oil fields. Like it should. Otherwise, why would the Russians be getting a major oilfield?


    And guess who the first country to get access to tap into Afghanistan's oil reserves are? Not us:

    Afghanistan, China sign first oil contract



    Again, the free market decided.
    .

    That's not the question I asked you. I already knew they were after the Oil, I told YOU that.

    but YOU SAID this:

    Originally Posted by Voltaire X
    What world do you live in? What countries is the US "taking" oil out of? It's their sand, therefore their oil, like you said. So explain to me which country we're stealing the oil from. We didn't get any oil out of the Iraq war. Afghanistan has about 1% of the oil Saudi Arabia does, and it's barely being pumped (and not by us).

    So how did you go from saying ^this

    to saying this....

    Looks like the free market is deciding who gets the oil fields. Like it should. Otherwise, why would the Russians be getting a major oilfield?


    And guess who the first country to get access to tap into Afghanistan's oil reserves are? Not us:

    Afghanistan, China sign first oil contract

    Again, the free market decided.

    Confused much?

    I ask you again, Do you have ANY facts to prove that the Afghan pipeline is barely being pumped?


  10. #110
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by JRog View Post
    I agree. I think too much of either is a bad thing. For me, the role of government should be to ensure access to the commons in order to "promote the general welfare". The government's first and foremost role should be to look out for the best interests of its people. It's doing a decent job of ensuring access to trade routes (albeit at a very inefficient cost), but is failing miserably at ensuring access to domestic commons like education and healthcare. Failu
    Exactly.

    Government didn't do a great job of regulating the mortgage market, either.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •