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 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 181

Thread: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  1. #41
    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
    Of course you are. Your "lessons" are based on nonsense, which doesn't sell very well to me.

    The USA has the most powerful military on Earth. China may have more troops, but we have superior weapons. A war between US and China would end badly for both nations. Both of us know this, and aren't about to go to war over a tinpot dictatorship like NK.

    and having or not having a few thousand troops in SK would make no difference.
    This is what we preached regarding Vietnam and now Afghanistan 11 years later. You are correct, wars are fought differently today. Do you give our enemies enough credit to know that our methods have changed as well? With all of our superiority we've not been able to defeat the Taliban (at least not while we're fighting a PC war). With all of our superior firepower we were not able to defeat Ho Chi Minh's forces in 'Nam (at least not while trying to fight a PC war.) If you need any further history lessons, then you'll simply have to rely on Google as now I have become OFFICIALLY bored with this. Now it's official.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Of course you are. Your "lessons" are based on nonsense, which doesn't sell very well to me.

    The USA has the most powerful military on Earth. China may have more troops, but we have superior weapons. A war between US and China would end badly for both nations. Both of us know this, and aren't about to go to war over a tinpot dictatorship like NK.

    and having or not having a few thousand troops in SK would make no difference.
    Agreed. The only place we need bullets much anymore are in countering insurgencies. And we essentailly have no need to be caught up in any insurgencies anywhere. No need to be losing troops to IED's and being killed by infiltrators in the uniform of friendlies.

    We need lines not crossed. And when they are, we turn a trophy of the antagonist into a parking lot. If they do it again, we level two trophies.

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,136

    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.
    scalability. we have a basic peacetime military with the ability to rapidly scale up to meet demand.

  4. #44
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    China is NOT North Korea's ally anymore...
    Since when?

    There is no way in hell that China would go to war with it's #1 trade partner (the US). We are way too interconnected economically. Hong Kong and Shanghai are financial hubs with every US major bank represented. These banks are providing a hell of a lot of services for Chinese companies.
    People probably thought the same thing about other wars involving trading partners.China can find new trading partners.The traitors in office and globalism scum have certainly made China richer and thus strengthened it's military.

    Another thing to add, South Korea is much stronger than it was in the '50s. North Korea is also much weaker. It claims to have a huge number of troops, but these are impoverished and poorly equipped peasants basically. They wouldn't stand a chance in combat.
    North Korea spends a **** load of money on it's military and considering the number of attacks that the DPRK have done over the years and the lack of retaliation from the US and ROK, the DPRK obviously is not as weak as you make them out to be.

    Stop trying to act like North Korea is this huge bully that could crush South Korea if it wasn't for its American guardian angel. That's just totally false.
    Those troops are there to serve as human shields in the ROK to deter the DPRK from attacking and nothing more.Obviously you don't know squat
    "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

  5. #45
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Last Seen
    06-18-15 @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    155

    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*
    Since I was in the US Army from 1962-Feb 64, and remember very well the adivsors in Vietnam, let's begin by saying they were not guards of an embassy, but genuine military advisors. I lived that history. Don't need to read more books about it.

    This nation started helping South Vietnam when Truman started it. Ike sent teachers. Truman had sent them other assistance. Ike believed apparently he could ship teachers of combat who spoke the language who were all Army special forces and that would fix the problem. Kennedy only added more teachers. I spent time at the Army school of languages at Monterey, CA only my course was Army leadership skills and saw those men being trained. Kennedy whom I voted for was my president almost all the way through the Army. I was in Germany when Kennedy got shot. Johnson was president a couple months and I was discharged. A year after I got out and some added months, Lindon Johnson sent troops to effectively invade Vietnam. Democrats in general want to blame Ike when it was Johnson opening up the war to our combat troops. Special forces know combat and are great at combat, but back then, they were functioning teachers to the Vietnamese. Until Johnson made major changes. Thank God I got home early in 64 when that war was very seldom mentioned in the USA by anybody. I knew of it but when I got back to the USA it seemed to me to be a non topic. It became a huge topic once Johnson invaded. When i was based in Germany, I am not positve of our gross troop strength but I believe we had maybe upwards of half a million troops there. We troops in Germany did not ever discuss Vietnam.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,596

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert A Whit View Post
    Since I was in the US Army from 1962-Feb 64, and remember very well the adivsors in Vietnam, let's begin by saying they were not guards of an embassy, but genuine military advisors. I lived that history. Don't need to read more books about it.

    This nation started helping South Vietnam when Truman started it. Ike sent teachers. Truman had sent them other assistance. Ike believed apparently he could ship teachers of combat who spoke the language who were all Army special forces and that would fix the problem. Kennedy only added more teachers. I spent time at the Army school of languages at Monterey, CA only my course was Army leadership skills and saw those men being trained. Kennedy whom I voted for was my president almost all the way through the Army. I was in Germany when Kennedy got shot. Johnson was president a couple months and I was discharged. A year after I got out and some added months, Lindon Johnson sent troops to effectively invade Vietnam. Democrats in general want to blame Ike when it was Johnson opening up the war to our combat troops. Special forces know combat and are great at combat, but back then, they were functioning teachers to the Vietnamese. Until Johnson made major changes. Thank God I got home early in 64 when that war was very seldom mentioned in the USA by anybody. I knew of it but when I got back to the USA it seemed to me to be a non topic. It became a huge topic once Johnson invaded. When i was based in Germany, I am not positve of our gross troop strength but I believe we had maybe upwards of half a million troops there. We troops in Germany did not ever discuss Vietnam.
    Correct, it was Johnson who sent in the real combat troops to a war that no one called a war, as it was undeclared.

    Trying to invade Vietnam without going on a war footing was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder up to that time, maybe the biggest ever.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #47
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    Correct, it was Johnson who sent in the real combat troops to a war that no one called a war, as it was undeclared.

    Trying to invade Vietnam without going on a war footing was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder up to that time, maybe the biggest ever.
    I agree. Even if it was a properly declared war, it still would have been a bad decision.

    I regard LBJ as one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. He's not as bad as Nixon in my opinion, but about on par with George W Bush.
    Last edited by Voltaire X; 09-09-12 at 01:00 AM.

  8. #48
    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 Robert A Whit View Post
    Since I was in the US Army from 1962-Feb 64, and remember very well the adivsors in Vietnam, let's begin by saying they were not guards of an embassy, but genuine military advisors. I lived that history. Don't need to read more books about it.

    This nation started helping South Vietnam when Truman started it. Ike sent teachers. Truman had sent them other assistance. Ike believed apparently he could ship teachers of combat who spoke the language who were all Army special forces and that would fix the problem. Kennedy only added more teachers. I spent time at the Army school of languages at Monterey, CA only my course was Army leadership skills and saw those men being trained. Kennedy whom I voted for was my president almost all the way through the Army. I was in Germany when Kennedy got shot. Johnson was president a couple months and I was discharged. A year after I got out and some added months, Lindon Johnson sent troops to effectively invade Vietnam. Democrats in general want to blame Ike when it was Johnson opening up the war to our combat troops. Special forces know combat and are great at combat, but back then, they were functioning teachers to the Vietnamese. Until Johnson made major changes. Thank God I got home early in 64 when that war was very seldom mentioned in the USA by anybody. I knew of it but when I got back to the USA it seemed to me to be a non topic. It became a huge topic once Johnson invaded. When i was based in Germany, I am not positve of our gross troop strength but I believe we had maybe upwards of half a million troops there. We troops in Germany did not ever discuss Vietnam.
    Thank you for your service! My father is a Vietnam vet (1967-68 - through the Tet Offensive) and I never truly appreciated his service until I learned a little history and was later activated myself as an Army Reservist to serve a year-long tour in Iraq/Saudi in 1990. I feel badly that our troops during the 'Nam era were placed in the position in which they were by bumbling politicians. I feel badly that the talking heads in Washington created a scenario in which our military could win individual battles.....but sadly, could never truly win the war.

    In my reference, I was simply attempting to illustrate to another poster the ineffectiveness of the policy of sending in small numbers of troops to act as advisors. It did not work well in Nam as it certainly did not deter a build-up of the NVA nor did it efficiently encourage the ARVN to stand up and fight the North. I'm certain that the trainers/advisors were outstanding soldiers and did the best that they could under the conditions and considering what/who they had to work with. It was the approach laid out by Eisenhower, propagated by Kennedy, and then escalated by Johnson that was flawed from the beginning.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  9. #49
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    03-19-13 @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    937

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    It's simply costing us WAY too much, half is more than sufficient. Better spent on other things like education, infrastructure, and science and tech.

  10. #50
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Should the US reduce its global military presence?

    I think several things need done, especially getting troops removed from foreign soil other than a couple thousand where it counts; mainly Kuwait, Germany, and Japan. Besides that our law makers need to quit giving sweetheart deals to companies that charge us far more than what some things are actually worth. I would go so far as to say our intelligence agencies need consolidated, reorganized and homeland security needs to be dismantled. These things alone would drastically improve our military and intelligence as well as drastically reduce cost.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •