• 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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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
 
There is no "Completely remove all troops from foreign locations" option.
 
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

I say drastically remove troops from all foreign locations other than Afghanistan. Those troops can be used to guard our borders. And once Afghanistan is deemed mission completed then troops should immediately removed from Afghanistan.
 
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.
 
There is no "Completely remove all troops from foreign locations" option.

That should fall under the "Yes, drastically" option. If you want to be more specific that's what posting in the thread is for :)
 
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:
 
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:

There are many in South Korea who want US troops out.I don't know how many times we were not allowed to leave camp because some Koreans were protesting outside the gates.The only ones who seem to love US troops in Korea are the old timers who were alive before the armistice agreement,Koreans employed by the US military,KATUSAs(since US camps were probably luxurious compared to ROK military bases) and the businesses who profit from doing business with US troops.
 
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.
 
The UK has a secret US listening station at Menwith Hill, and Lakenheath and Mildenhall are the only two fully operational airbases, though there are several smaller units, mostly related to comms and logistics. Germany has the huge hospital units to stanilise the injured troops before the Atlantic crossing. I don't know about Italy. I thought operations were closed down there after those guys took out a cable car full of civilians by flying too low.
 
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:

Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.

Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?
 
Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.

Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?

I have two words for you: Maginot Line
 
Nope, I'm not implying that, though it's true in some cases.

Apparently you seem to think that the 687,000 active South Korean military personnel and 8,000,000 reserve personnel won't be able to defend themselves long enough for NATO reinforcements to arrive in the case of a North Korean invasion. How could you think so little of our allies?

The US troops merely serve as human shields in order to deter DPRK from attacking.
 
I have two words for you: Maginot Line

The border between NK and SK is a lot smaller than the border between France and Germany/Belgium/Netherlands. And I don't think the US military should be spending billions sitting around waiting for some theoretical attack in a different continent.


The US troops merely serve as human shields in order to deter DPRK from attacking.

I know. I don't believe it's worth it. I don't believe the DPRK would attack even if we pulled out all of our troops from the region. It would still be a suicide move for them. NK would still be completely destroyed.
 
The border between NK and SK is a lot smaller than the border between France and Germany/Belgium/Netherlands. And I don't think the US military should be spending billions sitting around waiting for some theoretical attack in a different continent.

You asked a question regarding the capability of our allies of defending themselves......and I answered it. Now you're dragging government appropriation into it. Then you shared your opinion. Good that you have one. We disagree.....that's such a novel thing. None of this hoopla detracts from the fact that on many occasions our allies don't always have the capability to adequately defend themselves......especially against the threat of a nuclear attack.

You know, that's kind of the whole idea behind being "ALLIES".............we support each other in spirit, in trade, and, whether you agree or not.....in national defense. :shrug:
 
You asked a question regarding the capability of our allies of defending themselves......and I answered it. Now you're dragging government appropriation into it. Then you shared your opinion. Good that you have one. We disagree.....that's such a novel thing. None of this hoopla detracts from the fact that on many occasions our allies don't always have the capability to adequately defend themselves......especially against the threat of a nuclear attack.

You know, that's kind of the whole idea behind being "ALLIES".............we support each other in spirit, in trade, and, whether you agree or not.....in national defense. :shrug:


That would make sense, but then why does the US have over 900 bases in our "allied" countries when our allies have 0 bases in the US? It's a totally one sided relationship. I guess we disagree on how well our allies are able to defend themselves against third world countries. Also, I don't see how the 28,000 US troops in South Korea would help in the case of a nuclear attack.
 
i voted "yes, drastically." it's my opinion that our presence in the world should be a humanitarian one. ideally, when the US enters another country, we should be coming with food, medicine, and technology. it's my hope that we will eventually transition to that kind of foreign policy.

i would not scrap the military. we should maintain a reasonable level of preparedness for a country our size, we should focus much more on honoring our commitment to veterans, and cyberdefense should be given more attention.
 
That would make sense, but then why does the US have over 900 bases in our "allied" countries when our allies have 0 bases in the US? It's a totally one sided relationship. I guess we disagree on how well our allies are able to defend themselves against third world countries. Also, I don't see how the 28,000 US troops in South Korea would help in the case of a nuclear attack.

The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack against South Korea into, in essence, an attack against the USA as well. Does this make sense yet? :shrug:
 
The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack on South Korea into, in essence an attack on the USA as well. Does this make sense yet? :shrug:

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?
 
The answer is.....we don't need THEIR help to defend OUR borders; however, often, in the past, our allies HAVE needed OUR help to defend THEIR sovereignty. And, yes, sadly it is often quite a one-sided relationship......that's just the way things are.

Also, regarding SK; it's not that 28,000 US troops could realistically repel the entire NK Army. It's simply that the PRESENCE of US troops there, turns ANY attack against South Korea into, in essence, an attack against the USA as well. Does this make sense yet? :shrug:

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?
 
i voted "yes, drastically." it's my opinion that our presence in the world should be a humanitarian one. ideally, when the US enters another country, we should be coming with food, medicine, and technology. it's my hope that we will eventually transition to that kind of foreign policy.

i would not scrap the military. we should maintain a reasonable level of preparedness for a country our size, we should focus much more on honoring our commitment to veterans, and cyberdefense should be given more attention.

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.
 
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*
 
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.
 
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...



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...
 
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?
 
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. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom