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 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 181

Thread: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  1. #11
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.

    Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?
    I have two words for you: Maginot Line
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #12
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.

    Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?
    The US troops merely serve as human shields in order to deter DPRK from attacking.
    "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

  3. #13
    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 FluffyNinja View Post
    I have two words for you: Maginot Line
    The border between NK and SK is a lot smaller than the border between France and Germany/Belgium/Netherlands. And I don't think the US military should be spending billions sitting around waiting for some theoretical attack in a different continent.


    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The US troops merely serve as human shields in order to deter DPRK from attacking.
    I know. I don't believe it's worth it. I don't believe the DPRK would attack even if we pulled out all of our troops from the region. It would still be a suicide move for them. NK would still be completely destroyed.

  4. #14
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    The border between NK and SK is a lot smaller than the border between France and Germany/Belgium/Netherlands. And I don't think the US military should be spending billions sitting around waiting for some theoretical attack in a different continent.
    You asked a question regarding the capability of our allies of defending themselves......and I answered it. Now you're dragging government appropriation into it. Then you shared your opinion. Good that you have one. We disagree.....that's such a novel thing. None of this hoopla detracts from the fact that on many occasions our allies don't always have the capability to adequately defend themselves......especially against the threat of a nuclear attack.

    You know, that's kind of the whole idea behind being "ALLIES".............we support each other in spirit, in trade, and, whether you agree or not.....in national defense.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  5. #15
    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 FluffyNinja View Post
    You asked a question regarding the capability of our allies of defending themselves......and I answered it. Now you're dragging government appropriation into it. Then you shared your opinion. Good that you have one. We disagree.....that's such a novel thing. None of this hoopla detracts from the fact that on many occasions our allies don't always have the capability to adequately defend themselves......especially against the threat of a nuclear attack.

    You know, that's kind of the whole idea behind being "ALLIES".............we support each other in spirit, in trade, and, whether you agree or not.....in national defense.

    That would make sense, but then why does the US have over 900 bases in our "allied" countries when our allies have 0 bases in the US? It's a totally one sided relationship. I guess we disagree on how well our allies are able to defend themselves against third world countries. Also, I don't see how the 28,000 US troops in South Korea would help in the case of a nuclear attack.

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,063

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    i voted "yes, drastically." it's my opinion that our presence in the world should be a humanitarian one. ideally, when the US enters another country, we should be coming with food, medicine, and technology. it's my hope that we will eventually transition to that kind of foreign policy.

    i would not scrap the military. we should maintain a reasonable level of preparedness for a country our size, we should focus much more on honoring our commitment to veterans, and cyberdefense should be given more attention.

  7. #17
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    That would make sense, but then why does the US have over 900 bases in our "allied" countries when our allies have 0 bases in the US? It's a totally one sided relationship. I guess we disagree on how well our allies are able to defend themselves against third world countries. Also, I don't see how the 28,000 US troops in South Korea would help in the case of a nuclear attack.
    The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

    Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack against South Korea into, in essence, an attack against the USA as well. Does this make sense yet?
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  8. #18
    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 FluffyNinja View Post
    The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

    Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack on South Korea into, in essence an attack on the USA as well. Does this make sense yet?
    Couldn't the same effect be accomplished with 50 soldiers? Why don't they just have a group of about 50 soldiers guard the embassy, and that's it? US troops are still under attack if North Korea decides to invade. Either way NATO will be sending in huge swarms of reinforcements. What difference does the extra 27,950 soldiers make when we're talking about armies made up of millions of soldiers?

  9. #19
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

    Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack against South Korea into, in essence, an attack against the USA as well. Does this make sense yet?
    Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by making it clear to the leader of NK that SK is an ally, and any attack on them is an attack on us and will be treated as such?

    Yes, we need to drastically cut back on our military presence around the world. The cold war has been over for 21 years now. Anyone born during the cold war can now legally purchase alcohol.

    We could cut our military spending in half and still have the most powerful military, and the most expensive, on Earth. Isn't that enough? Why must we impose our will on the rest of the world by military force?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #20
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i voted "yes, drastically." it's my opinion that our presence in the world should be a humanitarian one. ideally, when the US enters another country, we should be coming with food, medicine, and technology. it's my hope that we will eventually transition to that kind of foreign policy.

    i would not scrap the military. we should maintain a reasonable level of preparedness for a country our size, we should focus much more on honoring our commitment to veterans, and cyberdefense should be given more attention.
    In the past, when our leaders have adopted this line of thinking, it usually ended up that a major military conflict erupted and our military forces were so "downsized" that we could not quickly take action. Go all the way back to the ill-prepared Union Army at the outbreak of the US Civil War, WWI, and yes, even at the outbreak of WWII. I could go on, but I've got to go take a shower.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •