EPTShould the US reduce its global military presence? - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Humpysaurus
Belgium18 Posts
| ||
|
BirdKiller
United States428 Posts
The idea that the U.S. military is there to control, bully, or manipulate the host countries haven't put much thought to even how the U.S. military itself can do so. At best, maybe the towns established around these bases, but nothing that can influence national governments. If you say instead the U.S. government is using the military as a leverage against the host countries, then the statement "If you don't do this, then we'll pull our military away out of your home" sounds like a bargain than a threat. U.S. military presence in South Korea and Japan are based on actual threats from North Korea, and based on the discussion, there seems to be a general agreement that U.S. forces should be there. Also, "troops" is a poor word as not all service members in these countries are infantry, shooters, combatants. There's probably more of support personnel like engineers, accountants, clerks, nurses, mechanics, etc., than there are actual fighting troops. | ||
|
EvE-1988
Germany26 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
robert1005
Netherlands98 Posts
| ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
But, the real problem is, what do we do with all of those soldiers and investments we have afterwards? We can't just throw the soldiers onto the streets and toss out trillions of dollars of hyper-advanced weaponry. On September 08 2012 13:35 xrapture wrote: Read any history book. Which nations are glorified? Britian, Rome, Japan, Egypt. Countries with a strong military presence. We do the dirty work so the other countries can keep their thumbs up their asses. But, we'll be remembered. I've never heard of Britain, "glorified," for enslaving about 1/4 of the world under their oppressive foot. I just hear of their cultural history and the heroes of the colonies who dared to rise up against them. No one really likes the international slave master. Rome is most highly valued for its cultural and scientific advancements. It's empire was extremely small in comparison to others. Even if the empire was seen as a good thing, people might think otherwise if they ever got deep enough into the details to see what they did. Julius Caesar was comparable to Pol Pot in how many he killed. The constant warfare cost millions of lives. The empire later fell as a result of these horribly wasteful military expeditions and the warrior society that they created. In an American book, I've never heard of the japanese in a good light. Ever. I've always read of them being brainwashed suicide bombers (This is obviously not true, though) or the vicious slaughtering oppressors of Korea and China. Sure, it has become a part of popular culture that ninjas, in particular, were skillful warriors, but what textbook gives half as much of a shit? When has Egypt's military been viewed positively? I love history and truly have never heard of anything other than the unification of the northern and southern regions during their wars. Their history is almost 100% cultural and being one of the oldest, "modern," civilizations. The Mongolians are the pinnacle of military prowess. The largest land empire in the history of this planet was accomplished by willful men with basic weaponry and horses. They changed the game, and it payed off from Korea to Europe. Aside from that (and the establishments of the, "Gun Powder Empires,") I've yet to heard of a good thing that came from their merciless bloodthirst. America isn't an empire. We'd be glorified if all of the places we won wars against were part of our states, but they're not. We don't, "conquer," we just, "influence." When was the last time someone went off on a speech about how great the Byzantine's were because of their military? You don't, because they never expanded. They had no foolish level of ambition that pushed them towards a suicidal, "My dick is bigger than yours," contest. At this rate, we will be remembered as the nation that bled itself to death trying to be great. | ||
|
bLooD.
Germany470 Posts
| ||
|
Fealthas
607 Posts
 | ||
|
paper121
50 Posts
Seriously though these bases are necessary for the safety of America. With all the modern and very powerful weapons nowadays that can launched from long range(not even nuclear, any intercontinental missile) it is much easier to have a presence where launch sites are possible than to try and stop them when they're already shooting through the air. If we completely pull out everywhere, within 1 months there will be at least 1 missile sailing to Somewhere, USA | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On September 08 2012 22:07 bLooD. wrote: 50.000 in germany is just blowing my mind. That's so much wasted money. That's what we do here in America. Waste a ton of money on stuff we probably don't really want as a people, but our politicians are paid enough to go vote for it and therefore we end up getting shafted financially. America already can't afford its incredibly bloated military budget and its kept us in this horrendous borrowing cycle with the Federal Reserve. All this borrowing comes with an interest cost as well, and has put us in this mathematical spiral of debt that has gone completely out of control. The bloated military budget also cost us funding that usually would've gone elsewhere. Infrastructure and jobs have started to fail because of lack of funding. Even though its not highly-publicized, most people know where it went and they aren't happy about it. Our ability to manufacture and innovate went out the door when we plunged ourselves into debt from military over-extension. | ||
|
zanga
659 Posts
Lyrics: http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858514575/ America! (Fuck Yeah!) - Freedom is the only way, yeah! .... Bed bath and beyond, fuck yeah! - - - - But on the other hand....... Seriously, they should drastically reduce their troops in lands of others. | ||
|
paper121
50 Posts
On September 08 2012 21:48 EvE-1988 wrote: America want to show how big their penis is Have you ever looked at a globe. We Always Show Our Penis: Florida | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
Big Stick Ideology going strong. Seriously though these bases are necessary for the safety of America. With all the modern and very powerful weapons nowadays that can launched from long range(not even nuclear, any intercontinental missile) it is much easier to have a presence where launch sites are possible than to try and stop them when they're already shooting through the air. If we completely pull out everywhere, within 1 months there will be at least 1 missile sailing to Somewhere, USA This is a ridiculous argument. First, I don't think many actually support completely removing troops from anywhere outside the U.S. Second, even if we did, who would send a missile at us? Iran? North Korea? Because let's be honest; our military is so ridiculously strong that it would probably take a combined E.U. force to actually stop us if we went into total war mode. If someone like Iran or North Korea sent any kind of missile at us, the U.S. military would wipe their entire civilization off of the map. It wouldn't be like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, where we only sent in a small part of our total force and didn't actually go to war. That massive amount of money that goes into our military actually goes somewhere, even if it doesn't really help the people of this country. You'd have to be clinically insane to want to even tempt the possibility of all-out war with the U.S. military industry. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On September 08 2012 22:41 paper121 wrote: Big Stick Ideology going strong. Seriously though these bases are necessary for the safety of America. With all the modern and very powerful weapons nowadays that can launched from long range(not even nuclear, any intercontinental missile) it is much easier to have a presence where launch sites are possible than to try and stop them when they're already shooting through the air. If we completely pull out everywhere, within 1 months there will be at least 1 missile sailing to Somewhere, USA You see into the future or have any backing evidence of this claim? I thought not, keep your simple opinions to yourself unless they have some reasonable basis... The only countries that have the ability to launch missiles that the American defense systems can't shoot down have no interest in going to war with the USA because that would mean mutual destruction of nations so either research your opinion or stop spreading it. The US should begin a slow pull out of most nations such as Japan and Germany, maybe not a full pull but enough to cut costs down. They should not pull out of Korea right away for the sole purpose that Korea has stated they want them there and it does allow for control in the Asian sector. The middle east is tricky because the US are the direct result of completely fucking that entire region so bad that they're almost in the stone ages so if they pull out now they'll be remembered for that but if they stay it could get worse. Anywho, I guess I'm torn, maybe remove from countries who don't need the presence (Germany especially, that's just silly) On September 08 2012 13:35 xrapture wrote: Read any history book. Which nations are glorified? Britian, Rome, Japan, Egypt. Countries with a strong military presence. We do the dirty work so the other countries can keep their thumbs up their asses. But, we'll be remembered. So much wrong.. So little time. Rome was overthrown for being totalitarian, Britain was known for enslaving around 20 to 25% of the world population and was part of the European slaughter of the Native American population, Egypt ... How did you even put that on the list of nations and Japan was never glorified for it's "strong military presence" but it's immense and beautiful culture and living by the sword... Most wars Japan fought they've either lost directly or won by luck (look into Mongolia's fleet, who would have completely decimated Japan, getting caught in a Tsunami such that the entire or almost entire Mongolian army drowned at sea which arguably lead to the falling of that specific empire. Point is, countries who change the world are remembered and the Americans could have could but they turned from the best nation on earth moving into the 70s into a corrupt powder keg of unethical horrendous political and foreign policies along with bad regulating and horrendous domestic control. You will be remembered, along with Canada sadly, as the nation that went from near perfection to utterly catastrophic. The only thing that will be remembered is how not to repeat Americans history. | ||
|
zanga
659 Posts
On September 08 2012 22:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: ....he U.S. accounts for something like 40% of the world's entire expenditures on military resources. Seems very correct according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#SIPRI_Yearbook_2012_.E2.80.93_World.27s_top_15_military_spenders That's a significant amount of money  | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On September 08 2012 14:46 RavenLoud wrote: Gross rights violations have been overlooked for political reasons for countries all over the world since a long time during the entire Cold War and after. It sucks, but it's how it is.(He may be a sonuvabitch but he's our sonuvabitch etc etc.) Occupying counties on the other side of the globe does not result in any long term solution. You need to only interfere in quick and concise steps to prevent genocide or disasters. Unfortunately lessons learned in Vietnam were quickly forgotten in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we still let Rwanda happen for some reason. First Gulf War and Croatia went pretty well though. This makes no sense. You think the US did wrong by acting in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet you still think they did wrong by not acting in Rwanda. No matter what they do, they did wrong. That seems to be the mentality that most ppl have. Iraq was Rwanda, the only difference was that Iraq was organized, and Rwanda was chaotic, but the same sick stuff took place by the ppl in power. As for Vietnam, it was actually indirectly invaded by the Soviets (before the US got involved), since they funded, trained and armed Ho Chi Minh's Communist regime. The same thing happened in Korea, China, and many countries in the middle east and south america. That's what the Cold war was about. The Soviets slave labored their ppl, and invested all their profits in countries around the world. USA was the counterweight to the imperialist Soviet Union, and I guess that made them imperialists as well, but considering how much better they treated their own citizens, I would assume that their intentions of having presence in other countries was much more honorable. As for Afghanistan it's pretty much a wasteland, and the only reason why Osama and his gang got power in Afghanistan in the first place, was because the Soviets invaded them in the 80's, and the US had to scramble up any allies they could find, that would help defend Afghanistan. | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
| ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
Also don't forget, at first Germany had to be occupied for ~40 years and protected from the evil russians (who basically got a fourth of Germany), they were not allowed to have any military at first (later on, that changed, and military was allowed, but only in very few numbers and only allowed to defend, never to operate in any foreign country. Then that rule got broken as well, but that's another story). Plus, as has been mentioned, it is the main basis for the US in EU. So it makes sense that there is still a ton of US military in Germany. And the US is pulling troops out slowly, it just does not happen as fast as people think it could. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On September 08 2012 22:58 ninini wrote: This makes no sense. You think the US did wrong by acting in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet you still think they did wrong by not acting in Rwanda. No matter what they do, they did wrong. That seems to be the mentality that most ppl have. Iraq was Rwanda, the only difference was that Iraq was organized, and Rwanda was chaotic, but the same sick stuff took place by the ppl in power. As for Vietnam, it was actually indirectly invaded by the Soviets (before the US got involved), since they funded, trained and armed Ho Chi Minh's Communist regime. The same thing happened in Korea, China, and many countries in the middle east and south america. That's what the Cold war was about. The Soviets slave labored their ppl, and invested all their profits in countries around the world. USA was the counterweight to the imperialist Soviet Union, and I guess that made them imperialists as well, but considering how much better they treated their own citizens, I would assume that their intentions of having presence in other countries was much more honorable. As for Afghanistan it's pretty much a wasteland, and the only reason why Osama and his gang got power in Afghanistan in the first place, was because the Soviets invaded them in the 80's, and the US had to scramble up any allies they could find, that would help defend Afghanistan. Well just to take out a piece of your sentence, Iraq was invaded under false pretense (watch the family guy episode earlier in the thread, that is exactly how it went down) and even though the director of the FBI and many other intelligence communities agreed Iraq had nothing to do with it, Iraq had one thing going for it... It was raising the price on oil by a dictator America put in place to keep those prices down. Vietnam was at first a realistic objective that simply wasn't planned well enough nor prepared for thoroughly enough and when the States had the ability to evacuate all military forces before it escalated any farther coincidentally JFK was assassinated during the time he was pulling troops out. Then the invasion went up a few notches and shit really hit the fan so no this wasn't "unjust" similar to iraq and arguably it was the right call at first but the continuation of conflict, mainly done not for the people but for the ever growing power struggle of the Cold War, was a bad call and they lost because of it. Afghanistan is another really hard to explain attack path (especially since it was invaded years after raping Iraq) but to boil it down the States were in the Middle East to stay and they did stay, if any nation should have been invaded it was Saudi Arabia or Pakistan but neither are viable targets economically or any other form so they picked the next best thing This leads to Rwanda, similar to all conflicts America fights for "freedom" they tend to leave out that they only police the world when they have something (usually major, oil/position) to gain. Rwanda was the prime example of the American government going "nothing here but poor black people, move along" where as Libya or Syria all have either strategic applicability or resources worth the "revolutions". Hope that clears some things up | ||
|
catabowl
United States815 Posts
Lets go place by place. 90,000+ troops in Afghanistan - Even though Osama and his been killed, Al Queda is still a large organization. Also, they have been known to fund other smaller terrorist groups in the Middle East. It makes sense to keep the heat and pressure on the largest group and keep them within arms reach. I also think another small part of it is a "stick it to Russia" concept too. With some trade talks slowly disappearing with Russia, this might be another sticking point to smaller regions surrounding Afghanistan. Russia could not contain Al Queda in Afghanistan, but the US could. Who do you want to support? I could see that mindset. 50,000+ troops in Germany The Germany troops have a lot of different reasons. Germany was the central hub for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the U.S. , England, and other allies. Germany right now I believe is going through a financial struggle and they had to cut their military by a lot. Having the U.S. military stationed (while the U.S. pays a fee) helps keep Germany as an European strength. From the people I know that are stationed in Germany, everyone over there is extremely nice towards the U.S. troops. There are more smaller reasons but I think the two I listed are the main reasons. 35,000+ troops in Japan 28,000+ troops in Korea Japan and South Korea go together. And it's all because of North Korea and a potential ally with China. North Korea wants South Korea gone from the planet. It's been said hundreds of times. Japan and South Korea are great strategical locations to help defend if North Korea goes to war and gets China to support. Now, I know the World does not want to see this happen. The potential is still out there however. 15,000+ troops in Kuwait We are in Kuwait because of Iraq/Iran. After we pushed Hussein out in the Gulf War, we stationed our navy and armed forces in Kuwait for protection of the country. While U.S. interests are on the oil, Kuwait is more than welcome to trade Oil to the U.S. for Military protection. If anyone plays Civilization games, it's bascially a "city-state" with a powerful resource and right now the U.S. offers the most value for it. 10,000+ troops in Italy -See Germany first part and this is also a landing ground for the Northern parts of Africa and the Middle East. I do not know much on Italy's side if they prefer the military there, if they get money, etc. I just know the basics for why Italy. If someone knows other reasons, please let me know. 9,000+ troops in the UK I believe the troops in the UK are mostly non-military. When the alliance between the U.K. and U.S. happened, troops came to the U.K. (eventually go to station in Germany) as a meeting place/strategy arena. And of course, other regions have other reasons. I do not think the military presence is quite significant. Not all of the troops stationed in countries are straight infantry types. Sure, they went through the training and can hold their own, they could be doctors, accountants, business professionals, etc, etc. | ||
| ||
