Should America Have Troops Stationed Overseas?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If dumbo kept them In Iraq thousands of people would have been alive today, hope the little jiffy lube man from Chicago sleeps well at night knowing he is responsible.

If we had never invaded Iraq in the first place hundreds of thousands of people would have been alive today and ISIS would be nothing more than a fly on the wall.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As for me, I'm sure that America should not have troops stationed overseas because it attracts a lot of hostility, making themselves a target of terrorism and jeopardising the safety of hundreds of millions of Americans. I'm not saying that America should be 'selfish' and not take up responsibility of fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism IS important and this can be done at home, in a more subtle manner without stationing troops overseas, for example by cooperating with allies.

No, we should not have troops stationed overseas, at least not nearly as many as we do. We can't afford it.

 

[OKTexas]

Our military is supposed to protect us not people in other countries

You really are clueless, forward deployment is one of the greatest deterrents possible, without it there would have been more wars. It's just that simple.

No one in the countries we are currently stationed is going to be attacking America any time soon now are they?

And this is no longer the 1950s we now have the ability to attack anyone anywhere in the world without needing deployed forces stationed in other countries.

It's time we pulled back and worried less about protecting other countries let them protect themselves

Never been in the military have ya? As you see in Iraq and Syria, air strikes without boots on the ground mean very little. Do you have any idea what it takes to move an armored battalion, artillery battalion or even a heavy combat engineer battalion 1,000 miles on land much less 3-6,000 miles overseas. It don't happen overnight. Forward deployment of equipment without the soldiers is better than nothing, but you still need people to maintain the equipment.

I've been in the military. 20 years. And you are missing the incredibly obvious. There would be no need to be bombing Iraq if we had not invaded in the first place.

Has nothing to do with what I said, you can't change what is.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As for me, I'm sure that America should not have troops stationed overseas because it attracts a lot of hostility, making themselves a target of terrorism and jeopardising the safety of hundreds of millions of Americans. I'm not saying that America should be 'selfish' and not take up responsibility of fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism IS important and this can be done at home, in a more subtle manner without stationing troops overseas, for example by cooperating with allies.

No, we should not have troops stationed overseas, at least not nearly as many as we do. We can't afford it.

But don't you see our air force base in Turkey can now attack the ISIS

Guess you are young and don't remember our pilots flying a thousand miles away when Reagan wanted to bomb Libya in the 80s.

 

[Wyatt earp]

France and Germany wouldn't grant our air force pilots stationed in GB to fly over there country's

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just Google the story, I lived it and read the newspapers at the time.

 

[g5000]

You really are clueless, forward deployment is one of the greatest deterrents possible, without it there would have been more wars. It's just that simple.

No one in the countries we are currently stationed is going to be attacking America any time soon now are they?

And this is no longer the 1950s we now have the ability to attack anyone anywhere in the world without needing deployed forces stationed in other countries.

It's time we pulled back and worried less about protecting other countries let them protect themselves

Never been in the military have ya? As you see in Iraq and Syria, air strikes without boots on the ground mean very little. Do you have any idea what it takes to move an armored battalion, artillery battalion or even a heavy combat engineer battalion 1,000 miles on land much less 3-6,000 miles overseas. It don't happen overnight. Forward deployment of equipment without the soldiers is better than nothing, but you still need people to maintain the equipment.

I've been in the military. 20 years. And you are missing the incredibly obvious. There would be no need to be bombing Iraq if we had not invaded in the first place.

Has nothing to do with what I said, you can't change what is.

It has everything to do with what you said.

If we were home more, we would not be involved in these entanglements to begin with.

 

[Correll]

No one in the countries we are currently stationed is going to be attacking America any time soon now are they?

Ever thought there is a reason for that, what do you think would happen in Korea if we pulled out?

Not really our problem anymore

South Korea had had 60 years to build up their own military so as to protect themselves from aggression

It's time they took care of themselves

We are there to protect OUr interests, numbskull.

Our troops were stationed in South Korea as part of the policy of Containment. It was in our interests to prev aent communist expansion.


What are our interests there now?

The value of US trade in and with NEA is measured in the hundreds of billions (to say nothing of the cost in human lives of any potential conflict there).

Our trade DEFICIT is running at 12 billion a year with South Korea and climbing, Japan 76 billion and climbing.

South Korea is spending a reasonable 2.5% gdp on their military, I'll give them that. Japan? Not so much.


We can't afford it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, we should not have troops stationed overseas, at least not nearly as many as we do. We can't afford it.

But don't you see our air force base in Turkey can now attack the ISIS

ISIS has not posed any threat to the United States. They are a Middle Eastern problem for them to deal with.

 

[OKTexas]

No one in the countries we are currently stationed is going to be attacking America any time soon now are they?

And this is no longer the 1950s we now have the ability to attack anyone anywhere in the world without needing deployed forces stationed in other countries.

It's time we pulled back and worried less about protecting other countries let them protect themselves

Never been in the military have ya? As you see in Iraq and Syria, air strikes without boots on the ground mean very little. Do you have any idea what it takes to move an armored battalion, artillery battalion or even a heavy combat engineer battalion 1,000 miles on land much less 3-6,000 miles overseas. It don't happen overnight. Forward deployment of equipment without the soldiers is better than nothing, but you still need people to maintain the equipment.

I've been in the military. 20 years. And you are missing the incredibly obvious. There would be no need to be bombing Iraq if we had not invaded in the first place.

Has nothing to do with what I said, you can't change what is.

It has everything to do with what you said.

If we were home more, we would not be involved in these entanglements to begin with.

No the point was even though you can project air power quickly over a distance, it has very little effect, especially when you try to minimize civilian causalities. In that scenario any gains made with air power are meaningless without ground troops to secure the gains. That was my answer to the poster who said we have the ability to project power very quickly. Read the complete string and tell me my answer wasn't appropriate.

 

[RKMBrown]

As for me, I'm sure that America should not have troops stationed overseas because it attracts a lot of hostility, making themselves a target of terrorism and jeopardising the safety of hundreds of millions of Americans. I'm not saying that America should be 'selfish' and not take up responsibility of fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism IS important and this can be done at home, in a more subtle manner without stationing troops overseas, for example by cooperating with allies.

Not permanently stationed, no. Fighting that which we fear is akin to shadow boxing. As long as we insist on feeding our fears, they will never fade..

We should be ready to deploy to help our allies but as we have proven, just having our military stationed over seas does not mean our POTUS will use them to defend Americans over seas. Look at what this POTUS has done. He forced our fighting men to stand down and not protect our Ambassador in Bengazi, when the top military brass complained he fired them for insubordination. He uses our drones to murder children, including Americans, then brags about it. He publishes details about who he used to kill Osama, then publishes their whereabouts to have them killed by our enemies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

Our military wasn't created to protect economic, strategic, and national security interests overseas. It was created to defend our own shores, so no.

 

[charwin95]

France and Germany wouldn't grant our air force pilots stationed in GB to fly over there country's

Are you sure about that?
Do you have a link to support what your claim?

 

[RKMBrown]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

Let's talk about that. Please name a strategic or national security interest overseas for discussion that you think requires us to have our troops stationed over seas.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

Our military wasn't created to protect economic, strategic, and national security interests overseas. It was created to defend our own shores, so no.

Incorrect.
It was created to protect the Unites States, the Constitution of same, and the rights of the people.
To do that the, military must protect the economic, strategic and national security interests of the United States.
As many of these are overseas, the US military must deploy assets outside the US.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

Let's talk about that. Please name a strategic or national security interest overseas for discussion that you think requires us to have our troops stationed over seas.

Sea Lines of Communications -- free navigation of the seas.

 

[Preacher]

If dumbo kept them In Iraq thousands of people would have been alive today, hope the little jiffy lube man from Chicago sleeps well at night knowing he is responsible.

They just wouldn't be US soldiers alive just more Iraqi civilians that are none of our concern. If the original dumbo had stayed the fuck out of Iraq ISIS would not exist there.

 

[Preacher]

Oh and as far as the question goes. Hell no. We do not belong overseas AT ALL.

 

[RKMBrown]

The US has economic, strategic and national security interests overseas - so, yes.

Let's talk about that. Please name a strategic or national security interest overseas for discussion that you think requires us to have our troops stationed over seas.

Sea Lines of Communications -- free navigation of the seas.

That is a vague and broad statement. I agree we need to keep some sea lines for shipping and communications lines / systems open. That requires a navy. A navy needs access to ports for refueling purposes and to stop for rest and relaxation. But that does not require us to station troops over seas, does it? That requires us to station troops on the seas not over seas. For example, we don't need naval bases around the world. We just need ports of entry access.