Should America Have Troops Stationed Overseas?

[Unkotare]

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.

What WE can't afford is a war or other major disruption in NEA. Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[Unkotare]

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

See your optometrist.

 

[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.

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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

And instead hundreds of thousands of others might be dead, Kuwait would not exist, a massive war among ME nations might have crippled our economy, etc. Speculation is speculation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

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

Nonsense. If the French felt that way, would we be a nation today? Forming alliances and honoring treaties is a perfectly constitutional use of our military. So the question isn't legality, it's philosophical. And Americans decided long ago to reject isolationism and to be involved in the world around us. Isolationists will still gripe, but they will never again prevail.

Isolationism in one thing.

Maintaining vast overseas alliances when our allies are not carrying their fair share and our budget and trade deficits are unsustainable is another.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Former Warsaw Pact nations are now members. Several former republics OF the soviet union are now members.

IF they want to deter Russia, they can do it. They just have to spend more than 1% of their GDP on their military.

The French did not ally with US until we proved we were serious contenders and determined and capable of making a serious effort on our own behalf.

Good points all. There are some, mostly libertarians, who want to rescind our global presence completely. They want it to seem hip and trendy, but it's just recycled isolationism.

And the French contrast is another good point. We did it all for the Iraqis and now they don't have the heart to maintain it. Their military is corrupt, cowardly, and a conduit for US arms to end up in the hands of ISIS.

 

[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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

Ok great answer. Makes solid sense.

Does not explain why "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries."

Seems to me, just an ignorant guy on the internet, that we might be spreading ourselves thin.

 

[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.

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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

Ok great answer. Makes solid sense.

Does not explain why "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries."

Perhaps not - but it -does- describe a a strategic or national security interest overseas and the necessity for us to have our troops stationed over seas in support of those interests.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

Ok great answer. Makes solid sense.

Does not explain why "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries."

Perhaps not - but it -does- describe a a strategic or national security interest overseas and the necessity for us to have our troops stationed over seas in support of those interests.

Yes it does. Perhaps there is a middle ground that can be achieved between supporting our need for "defending shipping lanes and having a navy that is ready to fight a nuclear war for mutually assured destruction " and supporting our need for "fiscal sanity and defending our actual borders from the drug cartels that our government has been arming to kill americans."

I find it odd that we have enough resources to protect the borders of our allies but not our own borders.

 

[peach174]

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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

Ok great answer. Makes solid sense.

Does not explain why "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries."

Perhaps not - but it -does- describe a a strategic or national security interest overseas and the necessity for us to have our troops stationed over seas in support of those interests.

Yes it does. Perhaps there is a middle ground that can be achieved between supporting our need for "defending shipping lanes and having a navy that is ready to fight a nuclear war for mutually assured destruction " and supporting our need for "fiscal sanity and defending our actual borders from the drug cartels that our government has been arming to kill americans."

I find it odd that we have enough resources to protect the borders of our allies but not our own borders.

The Elite's in both parities don't want it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

US-owned forward naval bases are more secure and can operate with fewer restrictions than foreign civilian ports open to our ships. They also allow for a naval air station to protect that base. Relying on foreign ports to supply US naval assets limits the operational capability of our naval assets to whatever the foreign countries will allow, leading to potential restrictions that may render our assets unable to do what we need them to do.

Ok great answer. Makes solid sense.

Does not explain why "the military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries."

Perhaps not - but it -does- describe a a strategic or national security interest overseas and the necessity for us to have our troops stationed over seas in support of those interests.

Yes it does. Perhaps there is a middle ground that can be achieved between supporting our need for "defending shipping lanes and having a navy that is ready to fight a nuclear war for mutually assured destruction " and supporting our need for "fiscal sanity and defending our actual borders from the drug cartels that our government has been arming to kill americans."

I find it odd that we have enough resources to protect the borders of our allies but not our own borders.

The Elite's in both parities don't want it.

Well then why do people vote for these two parties?

 

[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.

And instead hundreds of thousands of others might be dead, Kuwait would not exist, a massive war among ME nations might have crippled our economy, etc. Speculation is speculation.

What did our 2002 invasion have to do with Kuwait?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

And instead hundreds of thousands of others might be dead, Kuwait would not exist, a massive war among ME nations might have crippled our economy, etc. Speculation is speculation.

What did our 2002 invasion have to do with Kuwait?

Have a cup of coffee.