EPTShould the US reduce its global military presence? - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
bassa
United States10 Posts
On September 08 2012 16:35 bGr.MetHiX wrote: Do american people think US is not still in Iraq? can you name a unit that is operational in the Iraqi boarders? Purely curious. | ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
| ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
The U.S. will retain an embassy in Baghdad[23] with some 17,000 personnel,[24] consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each[24] and between 4,000 to 5,000 defence contractors nothing like it used to be, but still there to help keep order, which is fine by me | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
American troops have been invaluable in a lot of places... like Korea. The presence of US troops there means North Korea must, if it attacks South Korea, also attack the United States; a war it cannot win. As such, they've never tried after the end of the Korean War. American positioning is often intended to avert a war, not cause one. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
Having troops all over the place and just starting shit with countries doesn't exactly gain many friends of favor with the rest of the world. We shouldn't have to be the world police, if anything something like the UN should actually be doing that. Joint efforts to attempt to make the world a better place. Not going Rambo on everything. Otherwise we mind our business, you mind yours, everyone's happy. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On September 08 2012 16:43 Sumahi wrote: If you don't believe this is true, imagine how the US and its people would respond if China requested setting up a base in North Carolina? Or if Cuba asked, in order to protect the region that it be allowed to have a base in Florida? Well that's a rather asinine remark to make considering both their governments and people would respond the same exact way... | ||
|
Eisregen
Germany967 Posts
1st: Historical reasons - Germany: As occupying forces and as bases vs the soviet union. It was very easy to see, that the US and SU will not be the best friends and therefor germany was pretty much the most important forward base in the cold war. There are still nuclear weapons in germany, guarded by germans and americans. Japan - Japan was forbidden to have a standing army and the US as occupying force put up bases there. (though Japan has its Self Defence Forces now SDF) 2nd: strategic reasons (pretty much the most important nowadays) - Germany: The US has their biggest presence here, as germany is the gate to whole europe, north africa and even the middle east. A lot of operative, tactical and strategic planning is done in germany, the whole coordination is placed here. USAREUR, EUCOM and the command of the forces in north africa. Japan - same with japan. Japan is the gate to Asia and the indian pacific, meaning, China, North/South Korea etc. Strategic purposes to be as fast as possible in any place around the world | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On September 08 2012 15:24 Shiragaku wrote: Well at least the military presence in South America has drastically decreased since the Cold War. However, we seem very concerned about getting military bases in Africa, starting with Uganda. We sent US troops into Uganda to fight the LRA even though they were pretty much non-existent in Uganda at that point. And looking at Okinawa, the situation is just so depressing. Residents have to live with a very loud airplanes constantly. Okay, maybe that is not so bad, however, the military bases are always expanding and residents often have to relocate due to the expansion. And to make things worse, these military bases have been used for the US to bomb nearby Asian countries. This is imperialism. And people often ask me, what about China? http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp Yes, China is stronger in military might than Japan, but China would not dare invade Japan for economic reasons and global backlash, even if there were no military bases in Japan. And occupying Japan would be incredibly difficult. It was hard enough to occupy Iraq even though we are number 1 Proxy wars aren't phantom wars, though I don't think you realized you incidentally highlighted two countries in the midst of such right now in certain regions. As far as Japan goes the U.S. had selfish regional interests as well as guaranteeing Japan's own safety and future protection. How would you think the elite in Japan would feel if we pulled completely out? Sure we are big and bad, but part of the being the big and bad is making alot of promises towards other countries based on obscene wealth, which will be outmatched by obscener wealth in short time. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
For example, I like the idea of South-Koreans not being raped to death in North-Korean vengeance-camps when they roll over the border to take back what they feel entitled to. I might be a minority in that regard, people are ever so careless with the lives of those that they can't directly see. Afghanistan is a bad spot that won't ever really be sorted out, though it is far better today than it was ever under the Taliban, even if you just count the number of people dying, Afghanistan is by all measures a better place. The US can deploy everywhere on the earth in no-time, and that is a good thing to have. It keeps other nations in check, and slaps down those that don't, like Iraq invading Kuwait, or going into Serbia and stopping a genocide. The US global presence is a stabilizing force, which is why the world, despite what you may think, is far better off today than it was before the US's rise to super power. People are wealthier, there is more democracy, fewer wars, greater dedication to human rights, and with the advent of the internet, free speech in even the most totalitarian of states. The world today, after all this time under the wing of the US, has been better off. What ever happened to all those places under the Soviet wing? Poverty, dictatorship, censorship. Is the US a perfect country? Of course not, but there is no such country. Is it the best super power that we could have? Yes. There is no country in the world that could do a better job than America. All you people praying that Russia or China rises up to prominence, be carefull what you wish for. | ||
|
Cornstarched
Canada74 Posts
| ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
US armed forces - the biggest world polluter & the biggest consumer of carbon based fuel - http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml US did good for the world(even if by their own interest) but after WW2 it became in my point a "empire" fueled by economic interests, by the hand of big companys and military conglomerates! | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On September 08 2012 13:17 Dfgj wrote: Care to say why, and what your plan for ensuring the stability of U.S. foreign interests is afterwards? Would you care to show convincingly how the stability of US foreign interests is ensured by their military presence in each country? Didn't think so. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2006 Posts
America as it is now is nothing like the Roman and British empires, not even close. People thinking it is dont have a clue. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On September 08 2012 17:27 shell wrote: Every $ in the military = one less $ for your citizens! Face it, social wise USA it's the world power it could be and their citizens lack many things that others take for granted! US armed forces - the biggest world polluter & the biggest consumer of carbon based fuel - http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml US did good for the world(even if by their own interest) but after WW2 it became in my point a "empire" fueled by economic interests, by the hand of big companys and military conglomerates! Yes... Because having forces deployed on every corner of the globe can't in any way be used to negotiate favorable trade agreements. If you want to appear so well informed, at least think through the thought. For example, those dollars go back into the economy (aka the citizens) through defense contracts. So no, you are simply wrong in every way when you claim that every dollar on defense is a dollar less. And if the US is an empire, it sure is a nice one, because last I checked my country did pretty well and was never annexed into the US empire like the Eastern half of Europe was. Just look whenever the lines were closest. North/South Korea, East/West Europe, just see the difference between US influence and the influence of another super power. | ||
|
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
does this make it a good one ? | ||
|
ridethecatbus
United States64 Posts
There are very different reasons for each location in which the U.S. military is stationed around the world. A few cases are due to the fact that if the U.S. withdraws, immediate aggression would ensue. For example, China vs. Taiwan and North Korea vs. South Korea. One large but rather unpopular reason for the U.S. maintaining so many bases around the world is simply that most countries do not want to get involved in international conflict. And even more countries don't have the means to do so if they wanted to. For Americans, the biggest reason to pull military forces back home is to save money. For the international community, the reasons are the killing of civilians as well as the crimes that U.S. soldiers commit individually. These are very good reasons for the U.S. to full its forces home. However, I think there are stronger reasons to keep them where they are. One last thing to consider is that unless we are top military brass or in the intelligence line of work, we simply don't know how the U.S. military presence truly affects the behavior of other nations. Oftentimes I am in disbelief that countries still think they can take over other nations. I take it for granted that our mainland hasn't been invaded for 200 years. It's remarkable to think that the Berlin Wall was still up a little more than 20 years ago. I guess my point is that people take peace for granted. If there is peace, it's not because the world is cooperating in a modern utopia, it's peaceful because there is a dominant military power. Few (if any) civilizations have wielded that kind of power and not used it to conquer the world. That's why it's important for us Americans to elect presidents who are not warmongers. Interesting note, if America wants land from another nation, historically it has purchased it: the Louisiana purchase, Gadsden purchase, Seward's Folly (Alaska), and the Panama Canal. What other country has done that? | ||
|
CraZyWayne
Germany357 Posts
| ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
From a pure money standpoint there are better ways to reduce cost such as less gas turbine powered vehicles as they get terrible fuel mileage (around 4gallons per mile) while diesel equivalents get much better (around 3-4mpg) and large scale water recycling (it costs a stupid amount to ship water into a base in the desert). From a moral standpoint I wouldn't mind a 10-12% decrease in 'stable' area's such as the UK and Germany. | ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
| ||
| ||
