• 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
Klown said:
..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
Click to expand...


Oh good anti-capitalist conspiracy retard to be the turd in the punch bowl.
 
jamesrage said:
Oh good anti-capitalist conspiracy retard to be the turd in the punch bowl.
Click to expand...

Almost every post I see you make is just ad hominem after ad hominem.


cpwill said:
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. :)
Click to expand...


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:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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.
 
4Horsemen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Voltaire X said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
4Horsemen said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?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.




specklebang said:
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:
Click to expand...


I'm seeing Gary Johnson speak next week. So excited.
 
Voltaire X said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/energy-environment/15iht-srerussia15.html?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.
.
Click to expand...


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).
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


Confused much?

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

:bomb:
 
JRog said:
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
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Government didn't do a great job of regulating the mortgage market, either.
 
Voltaire X said:
Okay, this is bull**** as well. International trade is a huge benefit for the average US consumer. Why? Because of something called comparative advantages. If you ever take a semester course on intro level economics, you'll definitely cover comparative advantage. It's better if we import certain goods, because if we made them ourselves we'd be using resources that we could otherwise put to better use. If we didn't trade with other countries the way we do now, many goods would cost a lot more. People wouldn't be able to afford to buy as much stuff. And that's what we all want, right? To buy more stuff? For most people (90%+) the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
Selfish bargain-hunting for imports may be good for unpatriotic individuals, but it puts Americans out of work and sends money out of the country that should be circulating at home. We were doing fine before the free traders sold out the country.
 
Voltaire X said:
Almost every post I see you make is just ad hominem after ad hominem.
Click to expand...

If you expect to be taken serious then you should leave out your conspiracy theories. Going but thems e-vile richy rich capitalists blah blah means people should not take take you seriously and you belong with the truffers,birther, and other conspiracy cooks.
 
Yes pull out of just about every country right away except Afghanistan and South Korea. Slowly remove troops within a year in Afghanistan, and slowly remove South Korea and train South Korea to take care of their own problems.
 
Voltaire X said:
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.
Click to expand...

Italy and Spain (you didn't have that on your list as I recall, but it is there too) are rest/refit/resupply points for ships in transit from our East Coast naval bases (such as Norfolk) to the 5th Fleet. You take away Italy and Spain and you have cut the 5th Fleet off from its' supply chain. In addition, those bases along with the ones in Germany and our troops in the UK allow for us to project force into the Mediterranean, most especially along the North African coast, where Al Qaeda and affiliates maintain a heavy presence. Germany does less (as I understand it) to directly support the 5th Fleet, and is used mostly as force support for our land based forces in the CENTCOM AO. I had a number of buddies get evacuated there, most of our supplies came through there, and most of our flights either land to refit/refuel/load new pilots/off load the unit for a couple of days in Germany or in Ireland (though we don't offload there, we just get stupid drunk and then get back on the plane :)).

As we pull out of Afghanistan could we reduce our presence in Germany? Probably - and in an era of belt tightening, we probably will. Budget cuts hit the DoD first, after all. But the idea that we can either fully or even drastically reduce our presence in that region without dramatically increasing instability with resultant economic crisis (Europe is in trouble enough already, she doesn't need her energy supply threatened further) is dangerous wishful-thinking.

Mind you, I wish we could. That is how the world should work. But confusing how the world should work and how it does work is not a luxury we can afford.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Selfish bargain-hunting for imports may be good for unpatriotic individuals, but it puts Americans out of work and sends money out of the country that should be circulating at home. We were doing fine before the free traders sold out the country.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's not true AT ALL. Please study introductory level economics and get back to me. Trade makes everyone better off because of comparative advantages. And it's not like people need to "bargain hunt" to buy imported goods, just go to any store within 20 miles of your house and the odds are a lot of that stuff was imported.



jamesrage said:
If you expect to be taken serious then you should leave out your conspiracy theories. Going but thems e-vile richy rich capitalists blah blah means people should not take take you seriously and you belong with the truffers,birther, and other conspiracy cooks.
Click to expand...


Given that I've been defending free trade this whole time, I don't know how far up your ass you had to reach to pull that one out.
 
4Horsemen said:
That's not the question I asked you. I already knew they were after the Oil, I told YOU that.

but YOU SAID this:




So how did you go from saying ^this

to saying this....




Confused much?

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

:bomb:
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about a pipeline, but given that foreign pumping of oil didn't start until 2011 (according to the second article I linked above), yes I think that barely any oil is being pumped in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Voltaire X said:
Really? I think you should change your leaning to socialist then. Free trade is a critical aspect of the conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

No it not.What is a critical aspect of conservatism is patriotism.Giving jobs to a communist country thus taking jobs away from Americans and giving a communist county more funds to build up it's military are the opposite of patriotism.
 
jamesrage said:
No it not.What is a critical aspect of conservatism is patriotism.Giving jobs to a communist country thus taking jobs away from Americans and giving a communist county more funds to build up it's military are the opposite of patriotism.
Click to expand...

Alright well make sure you vote Obama then, as Romney is a much bigger proponent of free trade. In fact, Obama has been limiting our trade with China by raising tariffs on certain Chinese goods (like solar panels).
 
jamesrage said:
No it not.What is a critical aspect of conservatism is patriotism.Giving jobs to a communist country thus taking jobs away from Americans and giving a communist county more funds to build up it's military are the opposite of patriotism.
Click to expand...

In the old-world sense of Conservatism where it was linked to the Mercantile Economic system that in turn supported, Empire, The Crown, and The Church, that is correct.

In the new-world sense of Conservatism, however, that is incorrect. The Founders were contemporaries of Smith, not Colbert.
 
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...

I see no need to have our military presence in other countries. I would hope someday, that we get to the point where we defend our country when need be and stay out of other countries.

Our military is crucial for our protection, but I personally do not think we need to have our 'presence' felt worldwide unless we are assisting our allies or it's during a time where the U.S. is directly involved in a conflict. I do not believe we should be the policemen of the world or that we need to have troops scattered throughout the world.
 
Voltaire X said:
Alright well make sure you vote Obama then, as Romney is a much bigger proponent of free trade. In fact, Obama has been limiting our trade with China by raising tariffs on certain Chinese goods (like solar panels).
Click to expand...

I am not voting for either.I refuse to vote for liberals.
 
Klown said:
Capitalism is not a political system - its an economic model.

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism (that is a non sensical statement) - the opposite of socialism is something like fascism

China has a capitalist economic system but it is State run and centralised. THe US model of capitalism is Corporately run which is also centralised and protectionist

As far as the political system in the USA is concerned, it can be best described as a Corpocracy, an Oligarchical Corpocratic Welfare state catering for the Plutocrats.

The USA is certainly NOT democratic and its internal freedoms are provisionary and illusionary to say the least
Click to expand...
The US government is a privately owned, closely held corporation. In order to frighten citizens demanding participation, its flunkies have even come up with the definition of democracy as "mob rule." That only shows their contempt for the excluded American people. The Republican stockholders say, "We got ours and we're not going to let you get yours," while the Democratic stockholders say, "We got ours and we're going to give yours away."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom