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 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 181

Thread: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  1. #21
    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
    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?
    We tried that in Vietnam. Kennedy called them "Advisors". It just doesn't have the same effect. Can't we please just learn from the mistakes of the past use common sense and move on.

    Our educational system is obviously failing........does anyone learn history of the non-politically correct variety any longer? *sighs*
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #22
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    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?
    Doesn't have the same effect, and you know it. The Allies tried that with regards to China, Belgium, and the Netherlands during WWII. Nothing can really take the place of the presence of an ACTUAL allied fighting force of meaningful size in these situations. Stop nit-picking and let's move on.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  3. #23
    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
    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.
    This is honestly a really stupid post. The US was the most powerful country in the world during WWI and WWII. We got involved in WWI late because we didn't WANT to get involved... until the Lusitania sank. Once we did get involved, we quickly broke the terrible stalemate on the western front. As for WWII, we fought a two front war and still managed to kick ass. Again, we didn't get involved until we were attacked.

    And the civil war really isn't relevant here at all, that was 150 years ago. Times have changed, especially regarding warfare...



    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    We tried that in Vietnam. Kennedy called them "Advisors". It just doesn't have the same effect. Can't we please just learn from the mistakes of the past use common sense and move on.

    Our educational system is obviously failing........does anyone learn history of the non-politically correct variety any longer? *sighs*

    I really don't want to turn this thread into a historical debate but the Vietnam war was completely pointless. The US should have never been in South Vietnam, period. Are you trying to say that if we went into Vietnam earlier it would have worked out? I somehow doubt that's true...

  4. #24
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Doesn't have the same effect, and you know it. The Allies tried that with regards to China, Belgium, and the Netherlands during WWII. Nothing can really take the place of the presence of an ACTUAL allied fighting force of meaningful size in these situations. Stop nit-picking and let's move on.
    How is 28,000 "meaningful size" against the million man army of NK?

    Are we to sacrifice those soldiers in order to have an excuse to fight NK if necessary?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #25
    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
    This is honestly a really stupid post. The US was the most powerful country in the world during WWI and WWII. We got involved in WWI late because we didn't WANT to get involved... until the Lusitania sank. Once we did get involved, we quickly broke the terrible stalemate on the western front. As for WWII, we fought a two front war and still managed to kick ass. Again, we didn't get involved until we were attacked.

    And the civil war really isn't relevant here at all, that was 150 years ago. Times have changed, especially regarding warfare...
    Do you believe that the US was prepared to go to war in 1916? Perhaps you should try reading history. Or go back to your HS history teacher and demand your parents' tax money be returned.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  6. #26
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    We tried that in Vietnam. Kennedy called them "Advisors". It just doesn't have the same effect. Can't we please just learn from the mistakes of the past use common sense and move on.

    Our educational system is obviously failing........does anyone learn history of the non-politically correct variety any longer? *sighs*

    Oh, and everything just went swimmingly well when Johnson decided to ramp up the military advisers to a real fighting force and still refer to it as a "police action with half a million soldiers involved."
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #27
    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
    Do you believe that the US was prepared to go to war in 1916? Perhaps you should try reading history. Or go back to your HS history teacher and demand your parents' tax money be returned.
    I'm not turning this into a historical debate. That question literally has no relevance in modern times. WWII was the last time two major world powers fought each other. The closest thing since then was what, the Falklands War? Times have changed, the modern world is so different than the world of the 1910's.

  8. #28
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    How is 28,000 "meaningful size" against the million man army of NK?

    Are we to sacrifice those soldiers in order to have an excuse to fight NK if necessary?
    You seem to be missing the whole point champ. Who said anything about "sacrificing" the troops (except for you)? JUST THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE HAS KEPT THE NORTH KOREANS AT BAY. I believe, and this is just IMHO mind you, that as long as even a US presence of 28,000 is on that border, we won't have to worry about seeing a "sacrifice" of American lives.

    Now, if we leave and NK invades in full force.......we'll be forced (through alliance) to go back over there in even greater numbers and re-fight the Korean Conflict of 1950-52. In that case we may really see some major US casualties. I'm still holding that the current policy in S Korea is the correct choice......at least for the time being.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  9. #29
    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
    I'm not turning this into a historical debate. That question literally has no relevance in modern times. WWII was the last time two major world powers fought each other. The closest thing since then was what, the Falklands War? Times have changed, the modern world is so different than the world of the 1910's.
    To dismiss policy lessons learned from our past errors is quite ignorant indeed!
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  10. #30
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    Oh, and everything just went swimmingly well when Johnson decided to ramp up the military advisers to a real fighting force and still refer to it as a "police action with half a million soldiers involved."
    I never said that things went well. But the "ramping up" of troop presence by Democrat LBJ, DID have the desired effect......which was to escalate the war.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •