• 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
Voltaire X said:
*sigh*

China and NK aren't allies... I don't know why people keep pushing this. China is the US's #1 trading partner and we're not going to be fighting for that very reason. The Chinese no longer care about the little third world country that barely touches them.
Click to expand...

That would come as a real surprise to Kim Jung Un.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, and making up your own creative definitions to common words communicates so much better than those old, mediocre definitions found in the dictionary.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what the your media role models do when they misuse words trying to sound educated and give a new definition to oxymoron! But no, we can't question our gurus, especially the frauds who write dictionaries today that permissively include these errors as legitimate alternatives.
 
We should be out of europe...no reason to have troops in UK...Italy and Germany....japan and S korea I can see and certainly afghanistan until our politicians call it off totally
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only troops that should be abroad are the ones assigned to embassy's for their protection. The rest should be brought home. We have the technology to send a missile to any point on the Earth. Use it if we need to help defend an ally or even take out a country should the actual need arise. There is no need to send troops to thier deaths on foreign soil at all.
Click to expand...
Except for seizing the OPEC oilfiields. But that's not the treason of defending foreign countries that most Americans are outraged by, that's defending ourselves from illegal price-fixing cartels.
 
I think the troops in the East-Asian countries are needed. Drastically reduce in all others.
 
We need to stop being the world's cop. We have bigger problems here at home. We send troops to countries who have broken treatiees with us, who don't like us, which have no military or strategic importance. As I said before, we have a military obligation to the UN and NATO and thats enough. If those troops get in a scrap and they need more help fine but really.

Also reducing the size of the military would lower the deificit at least alittle bit.

Wolfman 24
 
cpwill said:
Have you told the North Koreans this? They may be surprised to hear it.



Just as a side note, are you aware of how many people believed that war between the British and German empires was impossible due to this same logic?
Click to expand...

You already made that point earlier. Times have changed since the 1910s. The world is much MUCH more interconnected now.

And sure, NK might think China is their ally, but in all reality they aren't. I don't care what delusions Kim Jong-un has.
 
wolfman24 said:
We need to stop being the world's cop. We have bigger problems here at home. We send troops to countries who have broken treatiees with us, who don't like us, which have no military or strategic importance. As I said before, we have a military obligation to the UN and NATO and thats enough. If those troops get in a scrap and they need more help fine but really.

Also reducing the size of the military would lower the deificit at least alittle bit.

Wolfman 24
Click to expand...

I agree with about 3/4ths of this post. I don't believe we should even entertain NATO and UN with troops. Honestly, entangling international alliances hurt more than help our country. Without a declaration of war from our Congress...we shouldn't be sending troops anywhere near combat.

Voltaire X said:
You already made that point earlier. Times have changed since the 1910s. The world is much MUCH more interconnected now.

And sure, NK might think China is their ally, but in all reality they aren't. I don't care what delusions Kim Jong-un has.
Click to expand...

You know China pretty much props up North Korea. If they weren't allies then North Korea would cease to exist...end of discussion on that matter.
 
AreteCourage said:
I agree with about 3/4ths of this post. I don't believe we should even entertain NATO and UN with troops. Honestly, entangling international alliances hurt more than help our country. Without a declaration of war from our Congress...we shouldn't be sending troops anywhere near combat.



You know China pretty much props up North Korea. If they weren't allies then North Korea would cease to exist...end of discussion on that matter.
Click to expand...

Care to provide a source for that huge claim of yours?
 
PrometheusBound said:
That is exactly what the your media role models do when they misuse words trying to sound educated and give a new definition to oxymoron! But no, we can't question our gurus, especially the frauds who write dictionaries today that permissively include these errors as legitimate alternatives.
Click to expand...

Now, that is a valuable post!

New definition of "valuable": Total BS, or baloney. See British: Bollocks.
 
Voltaire X said:
And sure, NK might think China is their ally, but in all reality they aren't. I don't care what delusions Kim Jong-un has.
Click to expand...

that's fascinating. how did you learn this?
 
The problem from your perspective is that we have binding treaties with both and are obligated to support them with troops when needed. Personally being ethnic German I have no problem with the UN or NATO or the EU for that matter.

Wolfman 24
 
wolfman24 said:
The problem from your perspective is that we have binding treaties with both and are obligated to support them with troops when needed. Personally being ethnic German I have no problem with the UN or NATO or the EU for that matter.

Wolfman 24
Click to expand...
Refusing to honor obligations is wrong, but withdrawing from these entangling alliances is what we have a right and duty to do. Only slaves are bound forever.
 
cpwill said:
that's fascinating. how did you learn this?
Click to expand...

This article linked on the other page provides a good explanation of the relationship.

China


Basically it says that the Chinese provide aid (food, water, etc.) to the North Koreans in order to keep them stable. They don't want a country on their border to become an unstable mess, like Syria is right now. This way, the Chinese can always threaten to stop providing this aid if the North Koreans get too aggressive. The Chinese actually want NK to stay on good behavior.


That's very different than a military alliance.
 
Yes and it's accurate. It is similar, in fact, to our relationship with Israel.
 
cpwill said:
Yes and it's accurate. It is similar, in fact, to our relationship with Israel.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Our relationship with Israel is more of a military relationship that stems from the fact that there is a lot of Jewish influence in the US government. I'd say this is more similar to our relationship with Pakistan.
 
Voltaire X said:
I disagree. Our relationship with Israel is more of a military relationship that stems from the fact that there is a lot of Jewish influence in the US government. I'd say this is more similar to our relationship with Pakistan.
Click to expand...

No, for the simple enough reason that we pay Pakistan to engage in hostilities. We support Israel so that they don't have to engage in hostilities, but so that we have a threat we can pull out when we need it. The Chinese get a lot of mileage out of the NKoreans in terms of strategic asymetric conflict.
 
Voltaire X said:
This article linked on the other page provides a good explanation of the relationship.

China


Basically it says that the Chinese provide aid (food, water, etc.) to the North Koreans in order to keep them stable. They don't want a country on their border to become an unstable mess, like Syria is right now. This way, the Chinese can always threaten to stop providing this aid if the North Koreans get too aggressive. The Chinese actually want NK to stay on good behavior.


That's very different than a military alliance.
Click to expand...

China doesn't want NK to collapse and to unite with the south as a democracy allied with the United States.
 
cpwill said:
No, for the simple enough reason that we pay Pakistan to engage in hostilities. We support Israel so that they don't have to engage in hostilities, but so that we have a threat we can pull out when we need it. The Chinese get a lot of mileage out of the NKoreans in terms of strategic asymetric conflict.
Click to expand...

We were hoping that by allowing Pakistan goods into the US, the Pakistanis would be grateful and see us as an ally. Pakistan was also seen as a source of cheap labor.
 
johnny_rebson said:
China wants it's neighbor to ditch it's dictator and embrace a democratic form of government? Hard to believe after watching video of the Tianamen Square Massacre.
Click to expand...

Tienanmen Square was in 1989. That article was written in 2010. Things can change in 21 years, you know. But of course you're free to believe whatever you want.

And of course Tienanmen Square had nothing to do with China's foreign policy.
 
Voltaire X said:
Tienanmen Square was in 1989. That article was written in 2010. Things can change in 21 years, you know. But of course you're free to believe whatever you want.

And of course Tienanmen Square had nothing to do with China's foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Do you think the current leaders of China want democratic elections in their own country where candidates would be elected to a legislative body and a president/prime minister would be elected? And I'm not talking about phony elections like they have in Cuba.

What has China done to democracy in Hong Kong?

Do the leaders of China want the Chinese people to see democracy as a preferred form of government?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Do you think the current leaders of China want democratic elections in their own country where candidates would be elected to a legislative body and a president/prime minister would be elected? And I'm not talking about phony elections like they have in Cuba.

What has China done to democracy in Hong Kong?

Do the leaders of China want the Chinese people to see democracy as a preferred form of government?
Click to expand...

All of these questions are irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about Chinese foreign policy, not domestic policy. Hong Kong belongs to China now so that falls under domestic policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom