• 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!

Should the US reduce its global military presence?

Should the US reduce its global military presence?

  • Yes, drastically

    Votes: 50 75.8%

  • Yes, just slightly

    Votes: 8 12.1%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • No, the current situation is fine

    Votes: 2 3.0%

  • No, even more troops should be deployed overseas

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Total voters
    66
shiang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of the current resources and personnel could be used for exactly those things you listed above.
 
shiang said:
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.
Click to expand...

or applied to deficit reduction.
 
FluffyNinja said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apparently Obama believes sending them as advisors, yet our men die. President Bush changed his two missions. Part of what he did was brilliant in carrying out the stated law passed by Congress and Bill Clinton signed. The law only stated to get rid of Saddam and did not state the mission was to build schools, fix infrastructure nor train troops. Bush added that. I understand some of the left whining over Iraq, escept it was them setting this up to begin with. Once executed, they were overjoyed Bush got rid of Saddam. Only when they realized they could make it only about not located WMD did they realize their obstruction could lead to some Democrat becomming president. Which is what happened. Now they whine the same thing is turned back against Democrats. This is so much fun.
 
Leave them in places we NEED them. Afghanistan, maybe South Korea, and maybe Kuwait. Other then that, why do we need people in Japan, UK, Germany, Italy?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Anyone care to venture a guess as to what may happen the instant we completely remove our military presence in South Korea.

Also, are you implying by this poll that there are no sovereign nations who ask for/welcome a US presence within their borders?:shrug:
Click to expand...
Just say no when they ask us to defend any country other than our own.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mecca and Medinah. The OPECkers' price-gouging has cost us as much as all the wars we fight in the Muslim bloc.
 
That cuts both ways. Remember that Canada, the UK and a fair number of other countries went to Afganistan as part of our treaty commitment to our closest ally - and with no regrets or reservations. Of course, we did NOT go to Iraq (for I hope obvious reasons), but I have to say the outside of the KRG, Afganistan is a lost cause (mostly because the resources to do it right were tied up in Iraq when they COULD have been effective).

Let's see: USA is $15T or so in debt, can not come anywhere near balanced federal budget, has $100T of un-fundable (I think I just invented a word) entitlements promised over the next few years - and this is even a serious question?????
 
Uh...that's kind of a simple issue: don't waste all of the petro above domestic production levels that you do. Pretty hard to take anyone seriously who waddles off down the road for an hour long commute alone in a guzzle-pig SUV to a job that doesn't likely need to be done.

BTW: Mecca and Medina are not in the region where most US energy imports originate.
 
FluffyNinja said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I saw there in 1967 was that the South Vietnamese were cowardly, corrupt, or collaborating with the Communists. We (H/2/5 USMC) went into one area where the national troops actually had a peace treaty with the enemy! The Boat People were Chickenhawks and none of us who fought to save such a worthless people have any sympathy for them.
 
Robert A Whit said:
Afghanistan and you may want our troops there, but I do not. Obama messed up greatly adding to the forces. Bush tried to keep the number a lot lower.
Click to expand...

That was because he needed 200,000 troops for Iraq and left nothing but a "placeholder" force in Afghanistan for 6 years. In other words he took his eye off the ball.
 
Voltaire X said:
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/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1112.pdf
Click to expand...

Just for the record, the United States has cut back quite a bit in Europe since the end of the Cold War. There were about 300,000 troops in Europe, now it is just a fraction of that. Here is just an example of some of the base reductions over the years in Germany:

w-germany.jpg
 
Porchev said:
Just for the record, the United States has cut back quite a bit in Europe since the end of the Cold War. There were about 300,000 troops in Europe, now it is just a fraction of that. Here is just an example of some of the base reductions over the years in Germany:

View attachment 67134117
Click to expand...

The reason for the cutbacks is pretty obvious in the maps. East Germany? Now, it's just Germany.

And, as for the remaining troops, what are they accomplishing in post cold war Germany?
 
AN obvious yes. We have troops in soverign nations when they are at peace. There is no point in doing so and is a waste of money
 
Voltaire X said:
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/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1112.pdf
Click to expand...
Watch “a world without US” it’s the best explanation I have ever seen.
 
Baralis said:
I am one of the few who seem to agree with Ron Pauls foreign policy stance and that is stay the hell out of other countries business and stop trying to police (aka manipulate) the world.
Click to expand...

What about our oil in the middle east?
 
johnny_rebson said:
What about our oil in the middle east?
Click to expand...

Its not "our" oil as far as I am concerned. The US and its people could probably reduce our oil consumption by a very large percentage (My guess 70%) if the people only set their minds to it. Sure It would require some lifestyle changes and sacrificing some luxury but in my view that is something we should be doing anyway, we are way to wasteful. We also have a lot of untapped oil on our own soil that we could retrieve.
 
Baralis said:
Its not "our" oil as far as I am concerned. The US and its people could probably reduce our oil consumption by a very large percentage (My guess 70%) if the people only set their minds to it. Sure It would require some lifestyle changes and sacrificing some luxury but in my view that is something we should be doing anyway, we are way to wasteful. We also have a lot of untapped oil on our own soil that we could retrieve.
Click to expand...

People will never voluntarily lower their standard of living. That's just a fact of life.

We need to switch towards renewables. Unfortunately the only electric cars that have been released so far cost upwards of $90,000. The first car company that can produce an affordable and reliable electric car for under $40,000 that can go 400+ miles without recharging will be raking in the dough.
 
FluffyNinja said:
What about our oil in Alaska and off the coasts of California and Florida..........DRILL IT! (and forget Mid Eastern Oil........at least for a while)
Click to expand...
But our trading partners in the civilized world are dependent on Muslim oil, which finances the jihad. So it has to be confiscated by the importing nations. We are heading for a collapse like the fall of the Roman Empire unless we form an alliance against the Third World, so the U.S and Russia should join in on the partition of the oilfields and bankrupt Islam before it bankrupts the developed, evolutionarily advanced world.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The reason for the cutbacks is pretty obvious in the maps. East Germany? Now, it's just Germany.

And, as for the remaining troops, what are they accomplishing in post cold war Germany?
Click to expand...

All those bases were not there just because of East Germany. I would assume you would know that though. USSR was a major threat at one time. My general point was, there have already been huge cut backs in troops and bases there since the end of the Cold War, since that didn't seem to be thought about in the original post on this thread. The remaining bases are part of a global network of bases that have been critical for overseas contingency operations (formally known as the Global War On Terror). Amongst other things, just one small example--not very many aircraft fly directly from the United States to places in South West Asia. Even though multiple air refuelings would get them there, that is more of the exception than the rule.

On a side note, I remember visiting West Berlin many years ago. I took a train there with my girlfriend before I joined the USAF. Found out the hard way a Euro-rail pass doesn't cover East Germany on the way to W. Berlin. Good times though.
 
Voltaire X said:
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.
Click to expand...

The US economy is completely dependent upon the Global supply chain and a liberalized economic world order. That world order and supply chain is in turn dependent upon the security guarantee of the United States Armed Forces, in particular the US Navy.

SO. The real question of this poll is: Is it worth the savings of drastically reducing our overseas presence if the result is an economic collapse that makes what we've experienced over the last 4 years look like a distant golden age?
 
cpwill said:
The US economy is completely dependent upon the Global supply chain and a liberalized economic world order. That world order and supply chain is in turn dependent upon the security guarantee of the United States Armed Forces, in particular the US Navy.

SO. The real question of this poll is: Is it worth the savings of drastically reducing our overseas presence if the result is an economic collapse that makes what we've experienced over the last 4 years look like a distant golden age?
Click to expand...
That is almost a total fallacy. The "supply chain" that brings in endless consumer goods and energy that is for the most part wasted are one of the things that has destroyed the US economy, not sustains it.
 
cannuck said:
That is almost a total fallacy. The "supply chain" that brings in endless consumer goods and energy that is for the most part wasted are one of the things that has destroyed the US economy, not sustains it.
Click to expand...

:lamo

There you go, folks. Your phones, clothes, computers, and gasoline? You don't need them. :D

Yeesh, another mercantilist fool. Didn't we shove this ill-gotten philosophy off, like, a century and a half a go?
 
cpwill said:
The US economy is completely dependent upon the Global supply chain and a liberalized economic world order. That world order and supply chain is in turn dependent upon the security guarantee of the United States Armed Forces, in particular the US Navy.

SO. The real question of this poll is: Is it worth the savings of drastically reducing our overseas presence if the result is an economic collapse that makes what we've experienced over the last 4 years look like a distant golden age?
Click to expand...
There are 300 million people in the US. That in itself is as good as a world economy. We only benefit from foreign trade if we are exporting surpluses we don't need at home. If we have to sacrifice in other areas to allow that trade, then we should quit producing surpluses and use the land and workers for things we need at home. Besides, all this "economic necessity" is just a lie to export jobs and make huge profits for a small group of Americans. It is not even necessary for them unless they have a neurotic need to fill their emptiness with more and more money, the bottomless pit inside hollow greedhead zombies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom