90,000+ troops in Afghanistan 50,000+ troops in Germany 35,000+ troops in Japan 28,000+ troops in Korea 15,000+ troops in Kuwait 10,000+ troops in Italy 9,000+ troops in the UK etc.
I think this is quite excessive. In fact, I think that every single one of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other TL users think about this.
Poll: Should the US reduce its global military presence?
Yes, drastically (403)
72%
Yes, just slightly (79)
14%
No, even more troops should be deployed overseas (32)
6%
No, the current situation is fine (24)
4%
I don't know (22)
4%
560 total votes
Your vote: Should the US reduce its global military presence?
(Vote): Yes, drastically (Vote): Yes, just slightly (Vote): No, the current situation is fine (Vote): No, even more troops should be deployed overseas (Vote): I don't know
Discussion of this issue is welcome. Please don't resort to insults or nationalistic flaming (e.g. "my country kicked your country's ass in whatever war")
Edit: Also the source for these numbers, from the Department of Defense itself, is here:
You should maybe do two sets of polls - one for Americans and one for the rest of the world. It might be interesting to see the differences in the votes.
As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
Fuk ya MERICA!!!! More troops more boom. Blow everything up!!! No we shouldnt have so many troops in foreign countries. It makes no sense to have such a large standing army spread throughout the globe unless you plan to go to war.
Yes, as long as other countries are simultaneously increasing their abilities to compensate, at least slightly (Japan, Korea, Germany, the UK, Italy, etc).
On September 08 2012 13:10 Voltaire wrote: I think this is quite excessive. In fact, I think that every single one of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other TL users think about this.
Care to say why, and what your plan for ensuring the stability of U.S. foreign interests is afterwards?
Anyway, yes, as an American, it should be reduced. Drastically? Depends what that means. "every single one of these soldiers should be brought home"? No.
Though I'm curious why we even have such a presence in Germany and to a lesser extent the UK, they should be fine without us.
The Germany one does seem kind of strange. Obviously there was a reason why there were so many troops there in the past and now it's a central hub to the East, but 50k seems pretty excessive.
A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
No, unless DoD ignores its own predictions of the tappable supply to demand for many important resources peaking in this decade. In other words, DoD believes that it will be unavoidable soon (not just expedient, but unavoidable) that to maintain western standards of living, a lot of other people are going to have to get fucked over.
On September 08 2012 13:18 seiferoth10 wrote: This should be a good thread...
Anyway, yes, as an American, it should be reduced. Drastically? Depends what that means. "every single one of these soldiers should be brought home"? No.
Though I'm curious why we even have such a presence in Germany and to a lesser extent the UK, they should be fine without us.
Germany I believe is due to the German constitution limiting the use of their armed forces for offensive purposes. They allow US bases their as a buffer against Soviet/Russian forces. As for Italy/England/other 1st world allied countries, US troops are stationed there to bolster a lack in their national armed force or as a first response team in emergencies.
On September 08 2012 13:20 TeuTeu wrote: A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
Most of these are remnants from prior conflicts.
They do provide some amount of stabilizing force for some areas that are quite important politically/economically to the U.S., and that's probably why they're still there.
On September 08 2012 13:20 TeuTeu wrote: A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
Remnants of ages past. Japan was forbidden from having a substantial military after WW2 so the US kept troops there to prevent the USSR from swooping in and taking over. Germany was divided into East and West for many decades. The US kept a lot of troops in West Germany for similar reasons.
We have bases in over 100 countries accross the globe, and there are Zero foreign military bases in the US. In fact, the idea of that even sounds absurd... why would we have a foreign military base in our country? Seems perfectly reasonable though that we have tons of them accross the globe- to most Americans.
Even though they don't exactly tell us on TV, these bases cause a lot of pollution and damage to the surrounding environment, and have a long history of practicing with weapons and things that aren't allowed in the US. Vieques, Puerto Rico is a good example of this, along with many of the bases in Central America. The natives do not want us there, but the government allows it for a variety of reasons.
The ammount of money and effort the US, and our species in general, spends preparing for war and killing each other is just laughably bad. Yes, drastically reduce.
On September 08 2012 13:20 DannyJ wrote: The Germany one does seem kind of strange. Obviously there was a reason why there were so many troops there in the past and now it's a central hub to the East, but 50k seems pretty excessive.
We like the think its been thousands of years since the last war but it's only been 70-75 years since that country tried to take over the world. I mean now ya it is less important but in retrospect 75 years is nothing.
On September 08 2012 13:18 seiferoth10 wrote: This should be a good thread...
Anyway, yes, as an American, it should be reduced. Drastically? Depends what that means. "every single one of these soldiers should be brought home"? No.
Though I'm curious why we even have such a presence in Germany and to a lesser extent the UK, they should be fine without us.
Germany I believe is due to the German constitution limiting the use of their armed forces for offensive purposes. They allow US bases their as a buffer against Soviet/Russian forces. As for Italy/England/other 1st world allied countries, US troops are stationed there to bolster a lack in their national armed force or as a first response team in emergencies.
Germany is also home to the largest military hospital outside of the US and the headquarters of the US European Command.
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote: As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
This is a lie perpetuated by those who stand to gain from the military-industrial complex.
None of the countries on that list have any problems with stability, not even Kuwait. If anything, these foreign occupations cause instability rather than mitigate it. The motivation behind 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks came from the fact that we were in their countries. Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
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.
On September 08 2012 13:37 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Not only can we not maintain this, but we are also losing more than we are gaining at the moment. Now, other nations hate our guts and want us out.
And yet half the country wants to increase our foreign military presence...
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
On September 08 2012 13:20 DannyJ wrote: The Germany one does seem kind of strange. Obviously there was a reason why there were so many troops there in the past and now it's a central hub to the East, but 50k seems pretty excessive.
We like the think its been thousands of years since the last war but it's only been 70-75 years since that country tried to take over the world. I mean now ya it is less important but in retrospect 75 years is nothing.
You can't say "that country." During the third reich Nazi-Germany was a totalitarian state. It's form of government, ethnic diversity, economy, and contribution to the arts were all completely different than they were during the 1940's. Are you implying that U.S. troops are stationed in Germany to prevent "that country" from spontaneously attempting global domination once more?
I assure you the American Military is only there because the U.S. is essentially an imperialist nation. As much as I'm sure stationing all those troops burns a hole in the wallet, there's no doubt a ton of under-the-table agreements going on. Same goes for the Middle East.
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
It's definitely not. The point that poster was making was that the US will be remembered for all time because of its global military presence. I think that's true, but not in a good way.
No, even more troops should be deployed overseas. There are still manny areas in the world where human rights are violated verry heavily without anny form of action from the global community, like a U.N. peace force. Dont think the usa will go to all of these places, as not all of them hold strategic value but i somehow would still like to see some international action to bring peace to such areas (wich are mostly in africa)
So:yes to more troops overseas but in a different way then they are deployed now.
The reason for the us troops in germany is and never was due the fear of germany taking over the world, it was for the fear of the soviets taking over the world. 50k in germany is not much, considering it was the front line of the cold war, all the air defenses where stationed there. If you then also take staff and supporting units, it realy is not that much. Military needs alot of personal to just keep their airplanes and guns stand by.
On September 08 2012 13:25 CursOr wrote: We have bases in over 100 countries accross the globe, and there are Zero foreign military bases in the US. In fact, the idea of that even sounds absurd... why would we have a foreign military base in our country? Seems perfectly reasonable though that we have tons of them accross the globe- to most Americans.
Even though they don't exactly tell us on TV, these bases cause a lot of pollution and damage to the surrounding environment, and have a long history of practicing with weapons and things that aren't allowed in the US. Vieques, Puerto Rico is a good example of this, along with many of the bases in Central America. The natives do not want us there, but the government allows it for a variety of reasons.
The ammount of money and effort the US, and our species in general, spends preparing for war and killing each other is just laughably bad. Yes, drastically reduce.
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
Eh, sometimes you fight for the glory. People have different views on how countries should be run. Do I want to see a world with 0 wars, where everyone has a macbook and an iphone standing in line at Starbucks? Nope. I'm fine with where my tax dollars are going.
Not all of it is for violence, most of its just standard guards. A big portion of the air force is security forces and they mostly just guard gates, transports, ect.
The U.S. could certainly stand to take some troops out of Japan, Germany, the UK, and Italy, but those other countries need them. If U.S. troops are not there for the people, who will be?
Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
While it's certainly rather important to the united states to maintain its military presence, YES it should definitely reduce said presence, as there is little benefit it can reap for the American people. We have far far passed the equilibrium point in terms of military presence, in my opinion.
Not all of it is for violence, most of its just standard guards. A big portion of the air force is security forces and they mostly just guard gates, transports, ect.
That link says there are only approximately 1,000 Marine Security Guards total. That's a tiny fraction of the total overseas deployments.
Keep military presence where it's actually necessary.
Having over 100,000 troops situated in Germany/Japan/Italy/UK is way overboard. Nothing is going to happen to Italy or the UK any time soon.
I understand the point of military presence in regions of the world to play the political game, but 35k in Japan? What, is China going to launch an all out assault on Japan tomorrow (obvious not)?
On September 08 2012 13:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
But how long can the party last? The debt is rising so quickly there's no hope of stopping it. Our spending is out of control. Funny how we overlook gross rights violations by China because we could not afford to have them as an enemy.
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
Eh, sometimes you fight for the glory. People have different views on how countries should be run. Do I want to see a world with 0 wars, where everyone has a macbook and an iphone standing in line at Starbucks? Nope. I'm fine with where my tax dollars are going.
Yes lets spend those tax dollars that we dont have, i mean last time i looked we are only like 16 trillion in the red. I mean it is not like there is anything else better we could be spending that money on. Or was that sarcasm that just went completely over my head.
I am surprised that we have so many in Germany. And i think we need to bring those numbers down, need to fix your own problems before getting involved with others.
On September 08 2012 13:50 Cocoabean wrote: Keep military presence where it's actually necessary.
Having over 100,000 troops situated in Germany/Japan/Italy/UK is way overboard. Nothing is going to happen to Italy or the UK any time soon.
I understand the point of military presence in regions of the world to play the political game, but 35k in Japan? What, is China going to launch an all out assault on Japan tomorrow (obvious not)?
I think the force in Japan is because aren't they still restricted on their military?
On September 08 2012 13:50 Cocoabean wrote: Keep military presence where it's actually necessary.
Having over 100,000 troops situated in Germany/Japan/Italy/UK is way overboard. Nothing is going to happen to Italy or the UK any time soon.
I understand the point of military presence in regions of the world to play the political game, but 35k in Japan? What, is China going to launch an all out assault on Japan tomorrow (obvious not)?
Doesn't America need to have the Pacific fleet stationed near China to conduct some gunboat diplomacy? Whenever China does anything America doesn't like, I hear about how a carrier is whipping its big dick around the Taiwan straits.
On September 08 2012 14:01 Whitley wrote: I feel like the general populations are the only groups that wants us out. If the people in charge wanted us gone, we'd be gone.
Yea but shouldn't the people in charge take into consideration that they want the US troops out? I know Japan has had some movement towards reducing the amount of US troops there.
On September 08 2012 13:50 Cocoabean wrote: Keep military presence where it's actually necessary.
Having over 100,000 troops situated in Germany/Japan/Italy/UK is way overboard. Nothing is going to happen to Italy or the UK any time soon.
I understand the point of military presence in regions of the world to play the political game, but 35k in Japan? What, is China going to launch an all out assault on Japan tomorrow (obvious not)?
Doesn't America need to have the Pacific fleet stationed near China to conduct some gunboat diplomacy? Whenever China does anything America doesn't like, I hear about how a carrier is whipping its big dick around the Taiwan straits.
I think the Gov of Japan wants the US there for that purpose (obviously the US also wants it as well). Due to various disagreements about the waters.
On September 08 2012 13:20 DannyJ wrote: The Germany one does seem kind of strange. Obviously there was a reason why there were so many troops there in the past and now it's a central hub to the East, but 50k seems pretty excessive.
We like the think its been thousands of years since the last war but it's only been 70-75 years since that country tried to take over the world. I mean now ya it is less important but in retrospect 75 years is nothing.
are u really saying what i think you are saying? seriously... wtf?
on topic : i dont really care all that much. i think it would be better for the us to reduce cost tho.
On September 08 2012 14:01 Whitley wrote: I feel like the general populations are the only groups that wants us out. If the people in charge wanted us gone, we'd be gone.
Yea but shouldn't the people in charge take into consideration that they want the US troops out? I know Japan has had some movement towards reducing the amount of US troops there.
I'm not big into politics so anything I say take as an uninformed's opinion.
Sure, they should take the peoples wants into consideration. But I do think they have a better idea of whats going on in the world then the general populations opinion based on what they read online and saw on TV. Maybe they have good reason to keep us there regardless of what the people want/think. Maybe they know things?
To support an airforce world wide you need basis world wide The bases in germany and italy for example could (and have been) used for action in the middle east, the bases in japan for action in korea. The basis do not need to have a direct relation with the country they are in. As far as i know most usa basis overseas are their to support the air force or navy. Other countrys dont need basis in the usa because they dont have to support a world wide operating airforce and navy.
Wow i really did not know We (the US) still have such a high number of troops in Germany. What is the purpose? The cold war is over and there is no one in Europe that wants war. Seems useless
If the United States cut it's defense budget by 3/4ths it would still be significantly higher than any other country. I'm sure we could spend those billions of dollars more wisely--for instance in education.
If we're gonna be the world's policeman, we'd better be getting paid for it. That's too expensive a job to do for free.
I don't think we're getting paid for it (at least, not enough to warrant the expense), and I don't think we want to ask to get paid for it. So, I'm all for cutting down.
On September 08 2012 14:23 RebelSlayer wrote: If the United States cut it's defense budget by 3/4ths it would still be significantly higher than any other country. I'm sure we could spend those billions of dollars more wisely--for instance in education.
The problem is that the corporations that make military equipment have huge pulls in Congress because they "donate" money to people who will vote for things that would make them even more money...and if you ever said you want to reduce military spending, then you're labled "anti-patriotic" which is just stupid.
On September 08 2012 14:22 mrRoflpwn wrote: "50,000+ troops in Germany"
Wow i really did not know We (the US) still have such a high number of troops in Germany. What is the purpose? The cold war is over and there is no one in Europe that wants war. Seems useless
Mostly at Ramstein. Mostly to maintain Ramstein.
I think having certain strategic bases (Ramstein, something in the Pacific) is reasonable for national security.
I think a lot of the covert stuff we did in the 60s-80s is despicable, and am somewhat worried it is still going on.
We should pull troops back, but you have to be pragmatic here.
Should we draw down some of our forces overseas? Probably. Should we bring them ALL home? No.
For example, 9,000 troops in the UK really isn't all that many. I think many people see a number like 9,000 and think, "Oh my god that's a lot of people." when it really isn't. The military forces in the UK are there in multiple capacities but are mainly there as liaisons and for joint training.
I know that our special forces train with the SAS (and British troops come here to train as well), our intelligence agencies work together (remember each service branch has it's own intelligence agency), and our air forces and navies work together.
As for some of the bigger numbers, yes we could probably draw them down. The troops in Korea I wonder about as I'm not informed enough about how well South Korea can defend itself if North Korea decides to invade.
The US government puts the image of the country at risk when it retains military presence in places like Saudi Arabia, Japan, Iraq, South Korea, etc. The fact that US citizen soldiers keep getting caught raping/killing little girls in Many places doesn't help this cause, either. It seems that the utility no longer outweighs the negative impact.
the excessive amount of troops in germany has historical reasons. during the cold war, germany was the most important country (both economically and strategically) that was bordering warsaw pact countries. a soviet invasion of western europe would almost certainly have seen its pivotal battles on german ground. additionally, the US wanted to position their nukes as close to the iron curtain and to moscow as possible - at ramstein.
the bases in italy are mainly airforce bases that allow the US to quickly reach the former yugoslavian states (remember the wars there in the 90s?) and the middle east. btw, this is also the main reason why turkey is a member of the NATO. the bases in japan, the philippines and korea serve the purpose of creating a balance in the region so that china doesnt bully around its small neighbors. and the bases in south korea are obviously also necessary to deter north korea.
all in all, i pretty much agree with obama though. the military presence in eastern asia is extremely important, in all other regions of the world, the US are overextending themselves and should reduce their troops.
The US economy is based on military spending, they'll always find a way to justify it ("patriotism" is the strongest argument, along with some retarded logic such as "I don't support the gov, but I support the troops")
On September 08 2012 13:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
But how long can the party last? The debt is rising so quickly there's no hope of stopping it. Our spending is out of control. Funny how we overlook gross rights violations by China because we could not afford to have them as an enemy.
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.
The US and China have no reason whatsoever to be antagonists other than for some dick measuring contests for warmongering idiots (or from lingering brainwashing of the Cold War). It's actually the perfect partnership especially when the USSR was still around. I think something is simply wrong these days as China and Russia are typically allied against the US, it shouldn't be this way at all. China has everything to gain from a long term alliance with the US as they are surrounding on all sides by hostile and/or powerful nations.
Also, the people of China prefer to tolerate the CCP rather than to be invaded and controlled by any foreign power. Patriotism is a huge pillar of support for the Communist party. There's a reason why even during the worse years of famine, Mao could get away with spending money on nuke research and even be acclaimed for it to this day. Ultimately, the more you threaten China, the more you would end up uniting them and ironically, protect the CCP.
You want to destroy the CCP, you expose them to their people and empower them instead of burning their house down. Totalitarian regimes are completely nullified when met with openness (and even democracies share some of their fear, given Wikileaks), but refueled and galvanized by foreign occupation no matter how much their own leaders actually suck.
So far it's been working out alright for China, today's CCP's grasp on China is severely weakened. They cannot survive another 1989, even slightly lower economic growth can put them into jeopardy. Of course, they will continue to grab on for dear life for as long as they can until they are 1) overthrown or 2) reformed from within. American military threats will actually not help neither processes as it tends to put the hardliners of the party in favorable light.
(I wonder if the Cuban regime is actually helped by the American blockade, it perpetuates the "we vs. them" mentality and probably prevent Cubans from seeing what they are missing.)
IMO It's becoming clear that the US should tailor down their hard power a bit to help their long term soft power and therefore consolidate their status as the leader of the world. The more paranoid and controlling, the more soft power it will lose, and American hegemony will gradually disappear as the rest of the world catches up (which should be welcomed by every humanist as a basically democratic dynamic).
As an American myself I can say we need to drastically bring home our troops. I do not think we should bring all of them home, but some. I personally think we need to bring home our troops from Japan, Germany, Italy, and the UK specifically. I could understand stationing troops in country's like Korea, or problem zones.
Although something to note is that part of the reason why a lot of people join the U.S. military is so they can travel to different country's. I have friends who live in all the the country's I spoke of who are in the military and they love it. I don't think they would be in the military if they had to sit in the U.S. So that's something to look into as well, seriously thought we have so many problems here we need to fix before we try to fix the world. Just my two cents though, what do I know.
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote: As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
This is a lie perpetuated by those who stand to gain from the military-industrial complex.
None of the countries on that list have any problems with stability, not even Kuwait. If anything, these foreign occupations cause instability rather than mitigate it. The motivation behind 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks came from the fact that we were in their countries. Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
If you had excluded the conspiracy theorist bullshit in the first sentence, your post wouldn't be terrible.
If we had no presence in the middle east or had not intervened when Iraq, you can just imagine what Saddam could have done to destablize the region. The potential invasion of Saudi Arabia would have had severe consequences on the global economy and there are plenty of other historical reasons I shouldn't have to sit here and point out to understand why troops are deployed in the locations the OP described. The presence, although small, acts as a form of deterent. As much as we SHOULD be an isolationist state in regards to meddling in other affairs, we can't discount the impact it would have to not act or protect our foreign interests that will impact us at home.
Besides, we'll be out of Afghanistan in 2014(lol maybe).
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.
...someone please explain why spending blood and treasure to stabilize other nations is a profitable activity for the American taxpayer?
Eh, sometimes you fight for the glory. People have different views on how countries should be run. Do I want to see a world with 0 wars, where everyone has a macbook and an iphone standing in line at Starbucks? Nope. I'm fine with where my tax dollars are going.
The ignorance in this post is just staggering. I don't want to pick on you, but how could you even think that wars are fought for glory. You say, you don't want a hippie hipster world, so wars are ok in some places, but you don't think of the fact, that most wars are fought in countries, where there is no starbucks, no iphone and no other luxury life-pleasers.
To respond to the actual op: I actually think, that these amounts of troops in foreign countries are to support an agenda, that has nothing to do with the life of average citizens, wherever they may be from. Someone earlier in this thread said, that he supports even more troops around the world, for the sake of bettering the lives of average citizens, especially in africa. I can't argue against that, since there is a thought of support behind that statement. But today i would even dare to say that 100% of foreign military is in any given country for strategic, in the end imperialistic, purposes. If the US military would serve a purpose like the UNO (which is garbage, btw) I wouldn't necessarily demand to lessen their presence, but in their actual form I would say their presence is much too high and not needed, if you think from the perspective of an civilian, may he be from the US or anywhere else.
Believe it or not there are a lot of good reasons for the US to have troops everywhere. One of the main ones that has been hinted at but not discussed to much is mobilization. The US does it as a strategical move. If anyone was ever to attack the US it would be impossible to completely stop a counter attack. God forbid someone drops a nuke on my head( Live in Wash DC ) and lets go even further and say they go call of duty status and emp the east coast shutting down the biggest naval base in the world (norfolk VA) and DC the hub of most of our government agencies. The US still has the capability to retaliate with every facet of its military. Besides the fact that the US has an insane amount of global bases there are always a minimum of 2 fully decked and armed air craft carriers out at sea escorted by destroyers and a few other war vessels. Multiple nuclear subs as well.
This actually serves a few purposes for the US. Besides the obvious firepower that it offers it also will make us strong enough to hold an alliance with even if we do get attacked on our turf by multiple countries. If we had everything here and got smashed by china and another super power why would any of our allies in europe stay with us knowing we were of no use in a global conflict anymore.
It seems dumb and the US is probably the most over disliked country in the world but at this point the US is sort of pot committed if that makes sense. If the US were to try to please everyone they would be putting us the US citizens at more risk for the coming wars/attack/terrorists that will eventually happen. In the end the governments end game is to protect the country at any and all costs and I think that goes for any country. Sure Sweden doesn't have forces everywhere but then again why would they for them they have other things of more importance there isn't and impending attack coming any day. If there was I'm sure Sweden would have a bad ass army.
If you look at the realistic military counter part to the US it is China and they have a pretty damn good amount of bases and military spread out too.
The type of war the US is in forever here on out now is stopping the 100's of dedicated terrorists groups that really have no interest in or way of crushing the military. They just want to kill as many civilians as possible. The US will do everything it can to keep it over seas if possible. In the end I don't think the US gov is trying to piss everyone off but its just an inevitable side effect of the situation the US is in. Would I like to see less military spread out through the world? Yes obviously. I grew up in a military family and I can tell you they don't like going overseas for a year plus at a time. They know most people over there don't want to see them. In the end its not their call. Sadly though there probably won't and dare I say shouldn't be any reduction in global presence.
In the end I live in the capitol of probably the most plotted against and hated country in the world overall. I really don't want a terrorists flying another plane into the pentagon right down the street so as selfish as it is if thats the game the US has to play then ya stay over there where the terrorist hot zone is and keep that shit over there. The game changed on 9/11 forever probably.
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.
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
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote: As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
This is a lie perpetuated by those who stand to gain from the military-industrial complex.
None of the countries on that list have any problems with stability, not even Kuwait. If anything, these foreign occupations cause instability rather than mitigate it. The motivation behind 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks came from the fact that we were in their countries. Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
If you had excluded the conspiracy theorist bullshit in the first sentence, your post wouldn't be terrible.
If we had no presence in the middle east or had not intervened when Iraq, you can just imagine what Saddam could have done to destablize the region. The potential invasion of Saudi Arabia would have had severe consequences on the global economy and there are plenty of other historical reasons I shouldn't have to sit here and point out to understand why troops are deployed in the locations the OP described. The presence, although small, acts as a form of deterent. As much as we SHOULD be an isolationist state in regards to meddling in other affairs, we can't discount the impact it would have to not act or protect our foreign interests that will impact us at home.
Besides, we'll be out of Afghanistan in 2014(lol maybe).
What conspiracy bullshit? Isn't it almost common knowledge that companies involved with the military have insane lobbying power? Not to mention all the under the table deals with contractors and foreign govt's that come with the chaos of war.
we waste so much fucking money and time with all these people policing the world when they could be doing productive things back home. This is so much manpower and resources that is wasting doing basically nothing....bring em home, send troops to places when we actually have to do something there like defend our country or help a war. 50k troops in Germany? give me a break.
However, the many people love it when the US expands into other nations. You have to create a series of new ranks for that specific nation which causes a lot of promotions and then a lot of new weapons have to be sold. Well at least according to my great uncle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Gregg
We don't need half the world's military budget. Even just "minor" cuts of 10-20% would still leave us DRASTICALLY above every other nation in the world.
I think dramatically, but some places are important. Reduce overall dramtically but still majority of the number in the middle east, and South Korea. Other places, like Germany? Why is there so many there?
On September 08 2012 15:36 LuckyFool wrote: we waste so much fucking money and time with all these people policing the world when they could be doing productive things back home. This is so much manpower and resources that is wasting doing basically nothing....bring em home, send troops to places when we actually have to do something there like defend our country or help a war. 50k troops in Germany? give me a break.
And what would you propose this "excess military personnel" do when you brought them home? Do you know how many of those men and women you would be putting out of a job? Do you know how many cutbacks that have ALREADY happened and put many Soldiers out of a job? Did you also know that they have already cut back on recruitment as well? Do you know where these out of job soldiers tend to end up? Soldiering elsewhere, where their leashes aren't so tight and the pay is even better.
As was said before, these men and women aren't there as an "occupying force" in most cases, they are in strategic positions across the globe so the government isn't caught with all their eggs in one basket so to speak, if there ever was a strike. They can respond in kind, and swiftly.
On September 08 2012 13:22 EtherealDeath wrote: No, unless DoD ignores its own predictions of the tappable supply to demand for many important resources peaking in this decade. In other words, DoD believes that it will be unavoidable soon (not just expedient, but unavoidable) that to maintain western standards of living, a lot of other people are going to have to get fucked over.
That is pretty much it. I'm not pro military, but we are running out of stuff on this planet pretty quickly. I guess, more wars are unavoidable at this point, even if US pulls out its military. However even if they don't, I'm sure the living standards in US (and in the rest of the developed world) will be going down quite fast.
Afaik the troops in Germany at least are there for training purposes etc. It was famous in Sweden that tonnes of deserters from the US airforce slipped away from Germany and got asylum in Sweden during the Vietnam war. The European facilities are probably mostly for lowering the time it takes to get to certain locations, but were originally located there with the cold war. It doesn't really matter where they're located, and it'd probably just be more expensive to call home the troops and rebuild a new camp in the US. Might as well keep them in Germany.
I do think that the US should chill out when it comes to wars, but that doesn't seem like the topic at hand.
Well, US can't pull out of Afghanistan. They fucked up that country in the hunt for the Taliban and they should stay until it's stabilized. Same goes for Iraq.
Other than that, I would be happy if the US decreased it's military presence around the globe where it's not needed. Of course helping your allies should still be a priority, but the european presence still seems a bit over the top. If there's anywhere they could be needed in the future it would be the korean peninsula.
US is on a mission to conquer the world.they like to send military troops to other countries to make "peace missions" where hundreds and thousands die.it's been like this since i can remember...i wonder how do american people justify this.these are their sons and daughers losing their lives out there for blood-soaked money that the government makes.
you cant put prize on the life of a human being....
and US is trading lives for good logistical positions and oil...
On September 08 2012 16:28 nkr wrote: Well, US can't pull out of Afghanistan. They fucked up that country in the hunt for the Taliban and they should stay until it's stabilized. Same goes for Iraq.
Other than that, I would be happy if the US decreased it's military presence around the globe where it's not needed. Of course helping your allies should still be a priority, but the european presence still seems a bit over the top. If there's anywhere they could be needed in the future it would be the korean peninsula.
For the sake of both the US and the rest of the world, it should be reduced. It pumps so much of the resources of the US into creating this empire of bases, and makes it so that while other countries are putting more money into education and their infrastructure, the US is trying to run the world. The close to 1000 bases the US has in other peoples' backyards creates resentment and pollute/posion the land around them. The only justification for their existence is an Imperial one. Rome and England made similar arguments about the need to be everywhere to control everything and anything, but it isn't moral, isn't civilized, it is just an attempt to argue that you and your particular country should have power over all others. 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?
According to liqupedia, there is still a presence of american troops
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
How much more does it really cost to keep US troops in Germany as opposed to US soil?
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.
I'm all for a smaller more specialized military on the whole. Lower numbers but better trained/equipped. We certainly don't need to do as much dick waving and Team America shit as we do. We could DRASTICALLY slash stuff and we'd still have the most powerful military in the world. Our Navy is something like larger than the next 13 combined, 12 of which are our allies. That's just silly.
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.
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...
The us american presence in germany and japan is easily explained. And no, it is not because the german forces are not that easily dispatched to an operation.
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
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.
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.
Yes, the US should maintain its foreign forces. I wouldn't want to live in a world where they pull back and let everyone sort out their mess themselves.
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.
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 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!
On September 08 2012 13:10 Voltaire wrote: I think this is quite excessive. In fact, I think that every single one of these soldiers should be brought home. I'm curious what other TL users think about this.
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?
It isnt imperialistic at all, they are there (Japan and Germany)to keep China and Russia in check. America have no control or power in 99% of these countries. It seems if you read this thread that Americans believe their military to be unstoppable, this isnt true either. Personally I think they should have more troops in Japan, they are the allies of the west and would need immediate assistance should China become aggressive. History repeats itself time and time again and the consequence of one super-power rising against another is war. America as it is now is nothing like the Roman and British empires, not even close. People thinking it is dont have a clue.
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 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.
This is cool because I just watched a documentary on this very subject on Netflix called "The World Without Us." It absolutely has an agenda (pro U.S. military intervention abroad) but I appreciated its academic/investigative approach to such a controversial topic.
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?
Too many troops and too high military budget. But will it change? No. Why? Tight connection between money and politics. Could all the government money be used in a better way? Certainly.
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.
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 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.
So now you agree that having troops deployed, that should be to help and protect countrys, can and will be used to force those said countrys into favorable agreements for the USA. That's what a empire does, bullies the weak.
The money you say they inject into the economy wasn't it better spend in train infrastructures? better schools? better heathcare? better energy system, that could make USA not the worse polluter in the world for instance?
Do you feel that spending on more guns, more airplane carriers, gunships, submarines etc.. is what USA needs? I don't really think so.. they have enought weapons allready.
It's a freakin huge lobby that takes away from the citizens to enforce a policy of expansionism for the huge companys that control USA's politics, it doesn't benefit the USA citizen.. never!
Yes I would like it if the US military limits it's presence (atleast in my country). The upsides are clear, we gain some employment (infrastructure, services).
The downside for me, I cannot really feel free. It has been 70 years since the war and we still have 50k US soldiers in Germany, who are not held accountable by german law (if they do shit). Additionally we hear stories like "militant islamist caught by FBI in Munich", which is good but wtf does the FBI has to do in Germany.
Additionally there is the nuke question. We have US nukes here which nobody really likes. Some time ago the french government asked if we want to buy some of theirs. Our government said no, why can't they say no to US nukes. My feeling is that the US still has a strong say in german politics and I would like that to end.
Long story broken down, I still feel occupied. I don't have anything against the US, but it would be great to finally gain freedom so long after the war.
I do not think the number of people say as much anymore. Modern war is all about the equipment and at the moment it is air-planes of all sorts. I think Rammstein could rationalize some without significant strategic losses, since Germany is pretty safe regardless. Italy, on the other hand has middle east and northern africa in sight and since Al Qaeda is strong in those regions it would seem like a good place to increase presence. Kuwait is a gate-keeper nation for middle east and strategically important. Afghanistan has significant borders with Pakistan and the country is a huge mess still with some Al Qaeda presence to boot. I do not know enough about eastern asia and in particular the chinese and northern korean contesting of it, but I assume that especially the japanese contingent has more important roles than I am aware of since the soldiers stationed there seems to have gone far overboard on abuse of the local culture.
On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote: 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.
The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them.
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote: As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
I would argue the Middle East as an example to that flawed ideology. That region is decades behind what it use to be pre-invasion and its infastructure is shot. An example of a good goal led by bad interests.
I expect we need a certain military presence to secure our shipping lanes, ensure free trade, and that we have advantage of international law, and also in case of emergencies. It's also nice to know that there are US forces around while we are touring the world so that we can get pulled out if there is an insurgency or whatever.
But all those people out there are just to prop up some war hawk's profit margin, so we shouldn't be doing what we ARE with them.
On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote: 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.
The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them.
I always wonder if the US really wants more Europe to solve this economic crisis since if you would unite Europe it would be a greater power than the US and they can't really influence our politics anymore the way they do now.
On September 08 2012 18:25 ridethecatbus wrote: 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.
The US is too smart to simply "conquer the world", they know as well as everyone else that this would not end well for anyone involved. Instead, they use their military power to control, not conquer, other nations. They use it to gain influence wherever they can, and will turn the military influence they have into political and economical one. As someone has said in this thread, they're bullies when they want things to go their way. That's why people outside of the US don't like them.
I always wonder if the US really wants more Europe to solve this economic crisis since if you would unite Europe it would be a greater power than the US and they can't really influence our politics anymore the way they do now.
This crisis started with them and it's still the USA rating agencys that turn the tides of investidors against europe. especially Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.
The same rating agencys that game AAA+ to Maddoff and the suprime funds! So yeah maybe not just because of that, but a strong € = weaker $ and other things..
We are buddys and we are "rivals", economic atleast..
Here is my take. This world isn't utopia, every nation would do what's good for themselves, if they have the chance.
Most non American see this military presense as something bad, and they're right because it's more beneficial to the US than any other countries. Americans who see this as something bad, does not see the beneficial side of things.
USA does this, because they can, and because it's beneficial for them. Now, this isn't just the American's thing, China, Russia and other super powers also does the same, but since they aren't the most powerful nation in the world, their presence doesn't take the spot light, but you can't deny the fact that they are trying to expand their influence to do the same.
By pulling away you're simply given the peice of pie to someone else.
None of the nations on that record have any issues with balance, not even Kuwait. If anything, these international careers cause lack of balance rather than minimize it.
Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote: Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
I love this "it provides work places" argument. It can be used in every context. Reduce production of weapons? Would lead to job losses. Reduce production of cigarettes? Job losses. And so on... People always forget that money and people could instead be used for a different purpose. This argument is so one-dimensional, but nevertheless used so often. Regarding this case: Yes, local economy would change and the empty barracks could be transformed into something different.
On September 08 2012 19:33 shell wrote: So now you agree that having troops deployed, that should be to help and protect countrys, can and will be used to force those said countrys into favorable agreements for the USA. That's what a empire does, bullies the weak.
You're arguing from a flawed perception. This isn't some "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse," situation. The US army doesn't roll in like the maffia and tell these countries to sign, or else.
Take a nation like Saudi-Arabia. Now, I'll save myself the hassle of trying to explain to you why exactly they hate Iran (not, it isn't lol-US so evil they pit muslims against each other).
Now, a nation like Saudi-Arabia is going to reach out to a nation like the US out of its own free will. They make trade deals, promise oil, promise cooperation. Why? Because the US is in the region. They don't roll up, point a gun, and demand stuff. They are in the area, they can decide the outcome of any conflict, so nations like Saudi-Arabia will make a deal.
They want to win a conflict, the US wants to have favorable economic terms. Both sides go in wanting something, both sides get what they want.
Is that empire-esque behaviour? You can call it that, but if it is then my local grocery is an empire, abusing my desire to engage in commerce out of my own free will, trading money for goods/services.
The money you say they inject into the economy wasn't it better spend in train infrastructures? better schools? better heathcare? better energy system, that could make USA not the worse polluter in the world for instance?
What good is a train if the enemy bombs it? An army is a simple fact of life. Without it, you can't exist.
Other than that, better energy, less polution. Sounds like that usual beggar-attitude that Europeans seem to have towards the US.
"Hey! Why don't you invent us a better form of energy!"
"Hey! There is a humanitarian crisis, why aren't you fixing it!"
"Hey! The environment is bad, why don't you solve it!"
And all the while we moan and bitch that the US is so big and powerfull. Maybe we should stop demanding that they solve everyone's problems? How about we start there, then we can talk about reducing US-troop levels.
Do you feel that spending on more guns, more airplane carriers, gunships, submarines etc.. is what USA needs? I don't really think so.. they have enought weapons allready.
You could have said the same for nukes. Still, the technology derived from that bomb has saved a good number of people.
Technology isn't like a videogame. There aren't civil-tech trees and military-tech trees. One doesn't cancel out the other, they overlap. Ever notice that rockets both take people into space and take people out on earth?
It's a freakin huge lobby that takes away from the citizens to enforce a policy of expansionism for the huge companys that control USA's politics, it doesn't benefit the USA citizen.. never!
Ooh yes, evil corporations are ruling the world! Twisting their mustaches and cackling as they derive everyone their fair due. Ooh woe to us, the poor and opressed!
Considering the US doesn't seem to ever get invaded, I would argue they are doing pretty well for themselves. Not having artillery rain on your house is something many citizens would consider a "benefit."
On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote: Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
I am aware that the soldiers bring income, I mentioned this point on the "pro soldiers" side of the coin. The argument with the empty space is not good at all. We live in one of the most densily populated countries in the world, unnused space is a ressource here, I would be really surprised if nobody finds a way to use the then empty areas.
The argument with the income: I would see this as structural change, happens in all industries all the time (mining, service sector becomes bigger and slowly displaces manufactoring). I would see this structural change as a chance to create something new in a steadily changing economic system.
Die as a hero or live long enough to become the villian.
I am curious what would happen if we pulled our soldiers out from those bases around the world. When I look at a country like Syria, I wonder which nation would step up to help in situations like that.
On September 08 2012 20:55 surfinbird1 wrote: Dude, we need these soldiers over here in Germany. They actually are a form of income and provide work places. If they leave, which has partially happened by the way, that's quite a big hit for the local economy and the barracks are left empty, though they can in some cases be transformed into student housing or something.
I love this "it provides work places" argument. It can be used in every context. Reduce production of weapons? Would lead to job losses. Reduce production of cigarettes? Job losses. And so on... People always forget that money and people could instead be used for a different purpose. This argument is so one-dimensional, but nevertheless used so often. Regarding this case: Yes, local economy would change and the empty barracks could be transformed into something different.
You do realize that those troops are American right? So they are there on American dimes, spending American money.
When they go back home to America, they are rather likely to take that money back home with them.
It is an absolute loss when these people leave, because they leave the country. The country will be down 50.000 wage-earners. Germany isn't going to magically fill that hole with student housing...
You need to be accepting of the fact that the local economy will be garotted, but I'm guessing that isn't a very big objection for you.
Keeping troops in peaceful countries - for whatever reason - seems sensible enough. Maybe the numbers are abit excessive in Germany, but it still sounds like a good way to serve. Serving overseas can be exciting. People live abroad for months or even years for whatever reason, and it's a great way to experience new things. The issue arises when soldiers are placed in warzones of wars that the population doesn't really agree with. At some point we simply feel sorry for the troops living in danger every day. This doesn't mean that those stationed in Germany and the UK are having a tough time and should be called home, not at all.
Also, as for "stability" issues. The world is unstable. It wasn't until recently that "we" developed the notion of human rights. And now we think its feasible to impose these rights upon anyone. I'm sure there are alien races who knew and know even better than us how to run society. It doesn't mean we'd be ready for such a change. You can't actually believe you can fix any of this with military presence. Societies and cultures are very different, and we probably shouldn't have butted in in the first place; but we saw it fit to get away with all sorts of resources and so we did. And now the world is what it is. In a way, maybe it's good someone takes "responsibility". But on the other hand: Wtf?? american foreign policies aren't very responsible -_-
They need to increase their siege tank/marine production in order to obtain world domination, which is what they are aiming for. AMERICAS FOR PRESIDENT!
The U.S. has been reducing the size of its military in Europe for the last decade now under different administrations of different parties. However, there's a lot of military infrastructure, support, and facilities built up since the beginning of Cold War to facilitate conventional warfare training with a foriegn allies and support for current ongoing wars such that U.S. military presence there has established its own purpose and worth. It's extremely expensive, time consuming, and full of headaches to move out the entire military out of Europe quickly as well.
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.
I've been saying for years that we need to drastically lower our military investments. 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.
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
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.
The amount of money that we spend on the military is absolutely disgusting. The U.S. accounts for something like 40% of the world's entire expenditures on military resources. Now, I can understand having direct strategic interests in something like hindering Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or possibly helping out Syria if the conflict really called for it, but there's no damn reason for us to have so many troops all over the globe.
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.
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.
On September 08 2012 13:53 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 08 2012 13:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
But how long can the party last? The debt is rising so quickly there's no hope of stopping it. Our spending is out of control. Funny how we overlook gross rights violations by China because we could not afford to have them as an enemy.
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.
As someone with multiple combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as being a proud American, I think its time that we step back from the role of 'World Police'. All we are doing in that role these days is making enemies, wearing down our friends, and spending money we don't have when we have so many issues going on back home.
Yeah, I think the US should cut at least some of its military spending and focus more on economic recovery. It's time to change the cold war mentality.
actually, over the years troops have been reduced in Germany, and there are quite a few cities that went downhill because they mostly existed on the wealth that having a nearby american base gave them (to counter the statement that foreign military bases ruin the country they are based in). 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.
On September 08 2012 13:53 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 08 2012 13:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
But how long can the party last? The debt is rising so quickly there's no hope of stopping it. Our spending is out of control. Funny how we overlook gross rights violations by China because we could not afford to have them as an enemy.
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.
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".
The responses in this thread are hurting my head. Lots of people speaking without any regard or listening or understanding of why. It's quite sad that even people "claiming" they are in the United States do not understand why our forces are where they are.
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.
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
edit : not saying i want the us troops to leave,as i said - they bring money in the country,which is great.
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
I'm sure someone probably asked this already, but what is proposed if all those troops were shipped back to America? What exactly would all those troops be doing back home? Training? Taking other people's potential jobs? Contributing to unemployment?
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
On September 08 2012 23:24 Caryc wrote: edit : @angrymag get a working intelligence service instead. no1 cares about tanks etc. at least not in the middle of europe.
This can't work. First you imply perfect information on intelligence side, which will never happen. What happens if potential threats get overlooked? What if the miltary strength of potential threats get evaluated false? What happens if the military cannot rebuild in time to react to threats?
Your point of view might work in an utopia of everlasting world peace, but as long as power interests, fighting for control of natural ressources etc. play a role in world politics, this approach simply cannot work.
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
Security over independence, interesting argument.
Having no miltary means independence? Grow up, really
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
Security over independence, interesting argument.
I don't see how reducing the military by 90% and becoming Russia's bitch has anything to do with independence.
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
Security over independence, interesting argument.
I don't see how reducing the military by 90% and becoming Russia's bitch has anything to do with independence.
I don't believe you understood the notion of my statement and Germany would not just "become Russia's bitch" you have no idea what you're talking about do you?
And to the poster who said "grow up" with regards to my statement, I don't see how that disagrees with it. I never stated "remove 90%" or anything along those lines, I just said it's interesting that German people would prefer security over independence which is in the most technical way speaking what that is.
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.
germany does not need any military personnel at home at all. especially not us troops we like to take your money tho. (as mentioned above).
to be honest,i dont even care if we reduce our "bundeswehr" by 90%. there is no reason we need any military besides helping in other countries.
This point of view is delusional, giving up the military means feeding the country to potential threats that may arise in the future (you cannot just rebuild if new threats arise, it takes time, money, infrastructure manpower and weaponry).
Security over independence, interesting argument.
I don't see how reducing the military by 90% and becoming Russia's bitch has anything to do with independence.
I don't believe you understood the notion of my statement and Germany would not just "become Russia's bitch" you have no idea what you're talking about do you?
And to the poster who said "grow up" with regards to my statement, I don't see how that disagrees with it. I never stated "remove 90%" or anything along those lines, I just said it's interesting that German people would prefer security over independence which is in the most technical way speaking what that is.
I guess I undertstood your comment wrong, so sorry for the grow up line. I am against most of the US military presence in Germany (The guys associated with NATO operations can stay here, as Germany is part of the alliance). But I am strongly against the nukes here and the large number of 50000 soldiers (+20000 Brits etc.). These are simply rests of the cold war and the occupation force installed after WWII.
The other poster suggested to largely abandon the german military, which in my opinion is borderline delusional. His argument had nothing to do with US forces.
On September 08 2012 23:10 catabowl wrote: 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.
Yes to the first reason, bullshit to the other one. The US army in Germany does not help keep Germany's strength, it's there purely for its own interest. And it's not that Germany needs to show any military strength in the first place, much like the rest of Europe doesn't.
You're right though, people are usually pretty nice to the troops, though I also heard stories about soldiers committing various crimes in Germany without any punishment whatsoever, since US soldiers in Germany cannot be tried by German law. Which is an absurdity on its own.
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.
Has to be one of the most pathetic thing I ever read in my entire life, congratulations, Germany had a strong military presence right? And japanese invasion of Asia was "GLORIOUS", right. Yeah, we'll remember, dont worry about that
Another reason I would suspect we've maintained such a presence overseas is that it serves as a deterrent to other countries. Ignoring that it obviously deters the "occupied" country's potential for risky behavior, it legitimately forces other surrounding countries to consider their actions as well. North Korea tries to pull a Sadam Hussein and take over a smaller, weaker country for no other reason than greed, they're going to have to seriously consider not only fighting the country they are attacking, but the United States and anyone else who's allied (or it would serve in their best interest to help) with said country. The world is at risk enough as it is given the current state of foreign affairs, and I'm not convinced it would be the wisest decision to eliminate/drastically lower the set deterrent that is the United States' overseas military.
Yes, we should cut our global security presence. Despite what the educational system teaches, the War industry DOES NOT boost an economy. Every dime that is spent on a tank is a dime that wasn't spent on a school. Every mind that is engineering a better way to kill is a mind that isn't engineering a better computer. People like to say that WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression. It's one of the biggest lies told to children. The truth is that America was able to assume the "Superpower" mantle after that war, not because we fought it, but because America was the country least affected by the war. We were able to fill a power vacuum left by the other World's Powers (The British Empire, France, Germany) being decimated by the war.
Cutting the military's global presence in the modern political climate, however, is much easier said than done. For one, it's bad for PR. Anyone who suggests cutting the Defense Department is immediately labeled as "soft" and is blasted for "putting our nation's security at risk". For two, many powerful Congressmen have ties to military contractors. Boeing, Halliburton, and General Dynamics are some of the largest campaign contributors in the country and have a healthy influence over many of our elected represenatives. Some Congressmen have these business's manufacturing plants located within their districts, and they are not going to vote to phase out a redundant or obsolete piece of military equipment when the result could mean fewer jobs in their districts.
Personally I think the US army is scary because of the dubious democracy of the states. Personally I think the lack of college education in the US is alarming. Tax funded colleges is imo a corner stone to democracy. The worlds largest army is in a country where the vast majority of voters don't have any education past high school, and that is a scary thing indeed.
are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
Do you actually know what communism is?
Ofcourse! I studied at Fox News college . what the hell is "Singapore" anyway?
This is not the right place to ask this question as there will be nonsensical bias out the ass. Let me first point out that nearly all of our military presence throughout the world is BY REQUEST.
Since we have a strong Korean influence here I'll use the example of the DMZ. South Korea would piss itself if we decided to leave in the name of being less......forceful. We keep shitbags out of your countries and maintain markets and trade lines. All allies to the United States benefit from this policy except you guys don't have to do a damn thing.
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
Do you actually know what communism is?
Ofcourse! I studied Fox News college . what the hell is "Singapore" anyway?
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
I pray that he's being sarcastic/ironic. If not, that's the final straw, and I'm leaving this fucking place.
On September 08 2012 13:53 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 08 2012 13:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Like every superpowerful nation in history, we are an Imperialist nation. Europe, much of the Far East, and other lands are under our grip. Other countries can easily be paid off or intimidated, as has been done often. Any country that steps out of line, we destruct and of course justify it with the typical "humanitarian / democracy" garbage. The early 1990s were the golden age, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US pretty much owned the world. We had so much power, we led the UN to enforce the most brutal sanctions ever made, and for 12 years at that, which caused a Holodomor-like disaster in Iraq, except with economic and social collapse on top of that.
Moral of the story is, the US is, proportionally to other states, the most powerful nation in history, and it is not to be fucked with. It's not the way I like it, but it's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we're going to reduce our military presence and consequentially our control and influence in foreign countries is delusional. It's not going to happen, and no country has done it unless it literally was not worth it at all or could not be sustained.
But how long can the party last? The debt is rising so quickly there's no hope of stopping it. Our spending is out of control. Funny how we overlook gross rights violations by China because we could not afford to have them as an enemy.
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.
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
The Iraqi Baath party was modeled after Stalin's school of communism, and the regime was put to power and supported by the Soviets.
Most vietnamese americans seems to have the opinion that they were abandoned when USA withdrew, and they are all speaking from personal experience or based on what their parents or grandparents went through. When USA withdrew, masses of vietnamese ppl ran towards the airports and harbors, to try and escape the country. They were terrified of the so called "independence movement of Vietnam". Your opinion, that they weren't fighting for the Vietnamese ppl during the end of the war is dead wrong.
What makes Vietnam complicated is the fact that the french were there long before, and this meant that they generally looked upon white ppl with suspicion. But the Soviets always operated under the radar, by scouting for ppl like Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and Mao Zedong, and then funding them into power, on the condition that they became Stalin's bitch. Because of this, the US struggled much more in Vietnam than they did in Korea. A significant majority of the vietnamese didn't trust USA because they were white, but they supported the side supported by the Soviets because they didn't know that they were involved. Stalin was a megalomaniac, and one of the greatest military and power strategizers in history. That was a lethal combination that lead to the death and suffering of over half the globe.
Saudi Arabia is pretty much allies with USA. They have a lot of stuff they need to improve, but they are not an aggressive power. Because USA already has influence there, and because they are rather peaceful, there's no reason to invade them. With Pakistan it's similar, although the relationship have soured lately, mostly because Pakistan went behind their backs, for instance by trading with North Korea.
I agree that USA have been biased in helping nations that actually matters for the global economy, but I think it's unfair to blame them for that. They can't save the world and they need to find ways to prioritize.
Also, if you compare Iraq with Rwanda, Iraq was much more stable and organized, and the iraqi ppl was much more educated. What this means is that it's easier to build up a stable and fair regime in Iraq, and that's another reason why they were a better target. It's because of these reasons that they are struggling so much with Afghanistan. The more civilized (educated) the ppl of a country is, the easier it is to build a stable regime.
On September 08 2012 13:33 Voltaire wrote: Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
Ya... This is just wrong. Al Qaeda was formed to resist the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, not because of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. supplied Al Qaeda with weapons and supplies specifically to fight the Soviets because of our stupid ass Cold War. After the Soviets left we thought that Bin Laden would be cool with us coming in, but guess what, he blew us up with our own weapons. As for U.S. military occupation, I think you're scale is really polarized. Slightly to drastically? You don't allow any middle ground. Of course U.S. occupation has to be reduced, but pulling all of our troops out of everywhere would be both impratical and a giant shitshow. Keeping quick reaction teams stationed in hot spots is just smart. As a sidenote, I would love for the military to send some of their budget NASA's way...
Certainly all that spending on the army seems like a waste, then again there hasn't even been a proper war in my lifetime, so what do I know.
And the army is not entirely useless: it creates jobs, makes for a great arms industry and sometimes even contributes to other industries and science. Also gives political leverage, makes it easier to claim resources, and can be used to fight a variety of threats, such as a hostile regime, a rebellion, an alien invasion ...
I'd be all for reduction, but have no idea how I'd go about that and how I would redirect the money and resources to something productive. Maybe with lots of infestors and neural parasite.
On September 08 2012 14:23 RebelSlayer wrote: If the United States cut it's defense budget by 3/4ths it would still be significantly higher than any other country. I'm sure we could spend those billions of dollars more wisely--for instance in education.
The problem is that the corporations that make military equipment have huge pulls in Congress because they "donate" money to people who will vote for things that would make them even more money...and if you ever said you want to reduce military spending, then you're labled "anti-patriotic" which is just stupid.
Sadly this about sums up the issue. Corporations are the ones really controlling the US government. Doesn't matter if a Dem or Rep is President because Congress is merely a puppet being controlled by big business and certain special interest groups, while the cries of their constituents largely go unanswered. Man I hate politics in the USA.
So yes the US government should drastically drop its presence worldwide. It's not our job to police the world, and I am sure many countries and millions, possibly billions, of people would be happier if we weren't toting our big guns everywhere. However, good luck getting that accomplished for the aforementioned reasons.
On September 09 2012 01:14 Tanukki wrote: Certainly all that spending on the army seems like a waste, then again there hasn't even been a proper war in my lifetime, so what do I know.
And the army is not entirely useless: it creates jobs, makes for a great arms industry and sometimes even contributes to other industries and science. Also gives political leverage, makes it easier to claim resources, and can be used to fight a variety of threats, such as a hostile regime, a rebellion, an alien invasion ...
I'd be all for reduction, but have no idea how I'd go about that and how I would redirect the money and resources to something productive. Maybe with lots of infestors and neural parasite.
Do you have any idea how much of supply depots(zero. i mean overlords) you would need for 350 milions infestors?
On September 09 2012 00:56 Pro gamer registerin wrote: are you freaking kidding me?Rest of the world are little kids and dumbass, they dont know how to behave and build their country.So we have to bomb them to ground and then learn them how to build! That America Burden! For Democracy, for Justice and for Money! God bless America, you communist bitch.
Do you actually know what communism is?
Don't mind him I bet he doesn't even had the slightest idea what capitalism means not to speak about communism.
On topic. While current US military presence outside its boundaries doesn't have a good justification from an economical point of view (budget) it's still the main way US can project its agenda around the globe (lets not forget about the nuclear submarines and carriers also) As long as military presence outside its borders serves a major goal (whatever it may be), those troops will still be there. And since currently there are no "defined" imba enemies, their presence can be mostly seen as a deterrence, for now, a sort of a "scarecrow".
The Iraqi Baath party was modeled after Stalin's school of communism, and the regime was put to power and supported by the Soviets.
I'm just your average Canadian, but wasn't the Baath party funded and armed by the CIA? The soviets attacked the middle east, and they were driven out by American-funded Arab forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, no?
From a US economic standpoint, if all these troops were to come home, what would they do? It may be screwed up, but them returning home means the soldiers are out of a job. The US market isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now.
On September 08 2012 13:20 TeuTeu wrote: A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
Most of these are remnants from prior conflicts.
They do provide some amount of stabilizing force for some areas that are quite important politically/economically to the U.S., and that's probably why they're still there.
I dont think previous wars has anything to do with it. Both of those countries or not like they use to be when we were at war with them. Also the soldiers in Korea and Japan could be linked to the tension between North Korea and South Korea. As for the troops in Germany I really dont understand that
On September 09 2012 01:45 cekkmt wrote: From a US economic standpoint, if all these troops were to come home, what would they do? It may be screwed up, but them returning home means the soldiers are out of a job. The US market isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now.
I think you are mistaking pulling troops back with sending to retirement There's plenty of stuff where previously deployed troops can contribute (major hell yeah for the engineering core) like building roads/bridges/etc effectively doing something good for da nation. I'm not an US citizen btw
On September 08 2012 13:33 Voltaire wrote: Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
Ya... This is just wrong. Al Qaeda was formed to resist the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, not because of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. supplied Al Qaeda with weapons and supplies specifically to fight the Soviets because of our stupid ass Cold War. After the Soviets left we thought that Bin Laden would be cool with us coming in, but guess what, he blew us up with our own weapons. As for U.S. military occupation, I think you're scale is really polarized. Slightly to drastically? You don't allow any middle ground. Of course U.S. occupation has to be reduced, but pulling all of our troops out of everywhere would be both impratical and a giant shitshow. Keeping quick reaction teams stationed in hot spots is just smart. As a sidenote, I would love for the military to send some of their budget NASA's way...
You're getting Al Qaeda confused with the mujaheddin. The mujaheddin was created to resist the Soviet occupation. Al Qaeda is a completely different group.
Another thing, people keep mentioning that North Korea would completely destroy South Korea if we pulled out. That's a complete lack of respect for the South Korean military. They would be able to defend themselves for long enough for the US to send reinforcement troops from the US mainland. We don't need troops RIGHT there just in case something happens. North Korea's army is very poorly trained and equipped; the South Koreans would easily be able to defend themselves until NATO reinforcements arrived.
On September 08 2012 13:20 TeuTeu wrote: A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
Most of these are remnants from prior conflicts.
They do provide some amount of stabilizing force for some areas that are quite important politically/economically to the U.S., and that's probably why they're still there.
I dont think previous wars has anything to do with it. Both of those countries or not like they use to be when we were at war with them. Also the soldiers in Korea and Japan could be linked to the tension between North Korea and South Korea. As for the troops in Germany I really dont understand that
The tension between the Koreas is a remnant of a prior conflict. As is the infrastructure in Germany - and Japan and Germany have limits on their military sizes, so the U.S. may see value in bolstering their numbers.
On top of that, it takes a fair amount of people to maintain naval/air bases (essential for actually projecting force) so that the U.S. can be able to deploy abroad.
Between this thread and the "should weed be legalized" thread, I'm beginning to think Team Liquid is slowly turning into a giant political circle jerk. We get it, the majority opinion on Team Liquid is left-winged. Do we need 700 threads to say "I'm liberal"?
On September 09 2012 01:45 cekkmt wrote: From a US economic standpoint, if all these troops were to come home, what would they do? It may be screwed up, but them returning home means the soldiers are out of a job. The US market isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now.
I think you are mistaking pulling troops back with sending to retirement There's plenty of stuff where previously deployed troops can contribute (major hell yeah for the engineering core) like building roads/bridges/etc effectively doing something good for da nation. I'm not an US citizen btw
Normally yes, but although the US economy is slightly recovering, those jobs aren't readily available. Post war recessions occured after WW1 and WW2 due to the influx of new laborors to the markets that were returning home from deployment. Another 100k+ people returning from abroad would not help reduce local unemployment.
On September 08 2012 13:37 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Not only can we not maintain this, but we are also losing more than we are gaining at the moment. Now, other nations hate our guts and want us out.
Oh really? what nations that we are in that hate us? pretty much been to all of them and i don't see this hatred. Could be just my experience. The only country I been to that is hostile to us mainly college students is Korea. Korea is split 50/50 id take a wild guess and say. Problem is if we pull out Korea's economy will take a dumb so incredibly hard it would compare with our depression. When i was there and I'm not exaggerating this. Soldiers dropped 90% of their pay into the Korean econ every two weeks.
It is a moment of clarity among these boards. This board shows how radical left the community for the most part is.
On September 09 2012 02:04 Chargelot wrote: Between this thread and the "should weed be legalized" thread, I'm beginning to think Team Liquid is slowly turning into a giant political circle jerk. We get it, the majority opinion on Team Liquid is left-winged. Do we need 700 threads to say "I'm liberal"?
I laughed.
You seem awfully burdened by the "liberal" threads on this forum, I envision you sitting in a chair, beat red face, screaming directly at your monitor: "LIBERAL POPPYCOCK'S, SOCIALISM AHHH!!"
maybe since the admins aren't shutting every single one down you should just not read the general forum, or go to a CNN/fox news forum where you might feel more at home
On September 09 2012 02:04 Chargelot wrote: Between this thread and the "should weed be legalized" thread, I'm beginning to think Team Liquid is slowly turning into a giant political circle jerk. We get it, the majority opinion on Team Liquid is left-winged. Do we need 700 threads to say "I'm liberal"?
I laughed.
You seem awfully burdened by the "liberal" threads on this forum, I envision you sitting in a chair, beat red face, screaming directly at your monitor: "LIBERAL POPPYCOCK'S, SOCIALISM AHHH!!"
maybe since the admins aren't shutting every single one down you should just not read the general forum, or go to a CNN/fox news forum where you might feel more at home
good day. eh
I'm glad you have such a great imagination. I'm a poor college student, figure out which side of the political spectrum I'm on, and re-envision me just not wanting 700 threads to make the same point.
On September 09 2012 01:45 cekkmt wrote: From a US economic standpoint, if all these troops were to come home, what would they do? It may be screwed up, but them returning home means the soldiers are out of a job. The US market isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now.
I think you are mistaking pulling troops back with sending to retirement There's plenty of stuff where previously deployed troops can contribute (major hell yeah for the engineering core) like building roads/bridges/etc effectively doing something good for da nation. I'm not an US citizen btw
Normally yes, but although the US economy is slightly recovering, those jobs aren't readily available. Post war recessions occured after WW1 and WW2 due to the influx of new laborors to the markets that were returning home from deployment. Another 100k+ people returning from abroad would not help reduce local unemployment.
So keep paying them like you are, but have them help your country instead of sitting in a base overseas. It will even save you money since you don't have to pay extra for them being abroad, and all able men are able to do constructionwork.
I guess it doesn't matter how much you owe if you have more guns than the bank. Of course the US should reduce it's global military presence but it really doesn't have a reason to and if it can keep our oil prices down then nothing is going to change.
On September 09 2012 02:04 Chargelot wrote: Between this thread and the "should weed be legalized" thread, I'm beginning to think Team Liquid is slowly turning into a giant political circle jerk. We get it, the majority opinion on Team Liquid is left-winged. Do we need 700 threads to say "I'm liberal"?
I laughed.
You seem awfully burdened by the "liberal" threads on this forum, I envision you sitting in a chair, beat red face, screaming directly at your monitor: "LIBERAL POPPYCOCK'S, SOCIALISM AHHH!!"
maybe since the admins aren't shutting every single one down you should just not read the general forum, or go to a CNN/fox news forum where you might feel more at home
good day. eh
I'm glad you have such a great imagination. I'm a poor college student, figure out which side of the political spectrum I'm on, and re-envision me just not wanting 700 threads to make the same point.
I'm picturing it now, a bowl a 10 cent bowl of Mr.Noodle beside you, a tear in your eye, and a small desk with a single lamp on it.. scattered torn papers lay strewn across it as you stare with a melancholy look into a dim lit screen. Beside you, a $5 starbucks coffee rests in your hand.
We mis-judge people everyday, I'm sorry sir, or m'am
However, I feel that moaning about liberal forum posts is not your job here. You're over exaggerating the amount of Liberal topics as well, there are just as many right wing nut-bars here as there are left.
Also, I'm done school and it's my day off, so fishing on these forums is fun for me, you just seem agitated. I suggest doing something that will make your day more pleasureable, clearly this is not that for you.
On September 08 2012 13:20 TeuTeu wrote: A question on politics submitted by a user called Voltaire. How appropriate!
On the issue of the troops overseas, I had no idea that we had so many troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not really sure of it. Can someone give a reason to have so many troops overseas? (Besides quicker mobilization).
Most of these are remnants from prior conflicts.
They do provide some amount of stabilizing force for some areas that are quite important politically/economically to the U.S., and that's probably why they're still there.
I dont think previous wars has anything to do with it. Both of those countries or not like they use to be when we were at war with them. Also the soldiers in Korea and Japan could be linked to the tension between North Korea and South Korea. As for the troops in Germany I really dont understand that
Probably as a staging point vs Russia.
On September 09 2012 02:23 Brutaxilos wrote: Yes, because Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, UK, and Italy can suddenly turn evil again and pursue world domination. Seriously Reagan. wtf.
Japan wants us there. So does Korea. Kuwait is an awesome staging point for the Middle East. UK I have no idea, maybe they want us there? I haven't looked into it. Otherwise I don't really have any explanation. Italy is for Africa.
No,The balkan wars showed the inablity of Europe to handle their own affairs, which nation was the first to intervene? the US, despit the Balkans being the backyard of Germany and Italy.
And it goes on, in the end the troops do more good then harm. there is very little resistence to a US pressence. even the Japanese resistence is really small overall.
On September 08 2012 13:14 stevarius wrote: As much as we would like to reduce our military presence around the world, it's necessary for the stability of certain regions and for our current global operations from a logistical standpoint.
This is a lie perpetuated by those who stand to gain from the military-industrial complex.
None of the countries on that list have any problems with stability, not even Kuwait. If anything, these foreign occupations cause instability rather than mitigate it. The motivation behind 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks came from the fact that we were in their countries. Al Qaeda was first formed because Bin Laden was horrified that the Saudi government allowed the US military to be deployed in their country.
At least we all now know why you created this thread: so that you can provide yourself a podium from which to spew your anti-military views (and at the same time call out the liars who make it happen, yay!).
The world is a much more complicated place than you obviously think it is - there are always going to be lots of people around the world who hate us, no matter what we do, no matter how much we try to help them, no matter how many of our troops we withdraw. The #1 priority of the US government, even higher than a balanced budget (of course), is the security of the American people. This is something that we don't fuck around with - we take the lives of our citizens very seriously. We have that many troops out for a reason - the world is a very dangerous place. And I sleep much better at night knowing that we have every base covered (no pun intended, lol), every i is dotted, etc. We are ready for ANYTHING. Have a good day, and God bless America.
On September 09 2012 02:26 Bahamut1337 wrote: No,The balkan wars showed the inablity of Europe to handle their own affairs, which nation was the first to intervene? the US, despit the Balkans being the backyard of Germany and Italy.
And it goes on, in the end the troops do more good then harm. there is very little resistence to a US pressence. even the Japanese resistence is really small overall.
What Europe? Europe is - contrary to popular belief - not a country. It's a landmass with 48 sovereign states. I know it's a shocker and confusing at first, but it's actually true.
We've maintained this for many many years. While we should perhaps decrease our presence in certain places slightly, it wouldn't make sense for everybody's sake, to decrease our troops drastically.
Sometimes I wonder why people even ask polls like this on forums with this demographic. No offense, but we all know what the answer will be before it's even polled.
A poll thread with a not especially informative op, that is not actually holding any real discussion. Its the responsibility of the op to lay the ground for good discussion, especially in topics like this, by including sources and lots of genuine and relevant information. Right now this thread contains a lot of "my country is better than yours!!1!" and not very much sourced and informative discussion, so I'm closing it.
EPT
