Should the US reduce it's Military presence around the world?

[ConcernedCanuk]

Poll question: Should the US reduce it's Military presence around the world?

.
.
.

OK.

Now you're here -

Do THIS poll too at CNN

" Should the United States greatly reduce its ground troops based in Europe, Japan and South Korea?"

Yes - 77%
2510 votes

No - 23%
766 votes
Total: 3276 votes
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

[Supormom]

1. 77% yes on cnn poll

[bvar22]

2. I voted, but didn't get a voter verified paper ballot.

What should I do?

Reduce military presence internationally?
Absolutely! Global Projection of Power is soooo 20th century.

The military budget of the US exceeds the budgets of the next (how many?) countries COMBINED.
Is this necessary? I don't think so.


Did I ask too many self answered questions? Absolutely!
Watching too much rumsfeld lately.
Is that a scary man?

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. Actually, when I voted, a "confirmation" screen came up. Is this new ?

[lucidmadman]

3. Yes!...

...and make corporations pay their fair share of taxes and if they're not operating for the public good revoke their charters.

[strategery blunder]

4. done, percentages are the same

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. . . . Yes-77% No-23% Total: 3822 votes

[kiahzero]

7. No

Our protection of Europe helped ensure its new stability - they didn't have to build up a military to protect from outside threats, because we had it covered. Hence, the "German problem" was solved.

[IrateCitizen]

9. I didn't realize that Germany was an "outside threat" to Europe...

I always thought that German aggression was primarily a result of its later arrival on the stage as a major player in Europe, which consistently resulted in England and France trying to "squeeze them out". I also was under the impression that not too many Europeans who lived through WWII were too anxious to repeat the event of a major war playing out in their backyard.

Additionally, I didn't realize that Europe was STILL facing a significant outside threat that justified our maintaining over 100,000 troops on its mainland.

I also didn't realize that there were barbarian hoardes waiting to set sail for Okinawa, justifying our continued presence on that island despite the protestations of its populace.

Neither did I realize that those 38,000 troops in South Korea were playing any kind of meaningful role in stopping North Korean aggression -- unless you consider the fact that the whole damned South Korean military is still officially under AMERICAN control.

IOW, you'll have to come up with a better argument than the hole-ridden one you have presented.

[kiahzero]

11. Germany wasn't an outside threat, the Soviets were

I always thought that German aggression was primarily a result of its later arrival on the stage as a major player in Europe, which consistently resulted in England and France trying to "squeeze them out". I also was under the impression that not too many Europeans who lived through WWII were too anxious to repeat the event of a major war playing out in their backyard.

You are correct that Europe did not want to repeat WWII. However, Soviet expansion meant that the Europe needed military protection... if Germany (the most logical place to check the USSR, geographically) built up a military, the tensions of the inter-War period would return.

As for the idea that Europe needed outside protection to develop into what it has become, it's not my thesis... it came from this article:
http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

Now, he's not a leftie by any stretch, according to the stuff I can see he's written for the Post, but that doesn't make his point any less cogent.

I also didn't realize that there were barbarian hoardes waiting to set sail for Okinawa, justifying our continued presence on that island despite the protestations of its populace.

If they want us gone, that's different... Germany, for instance, does not want us to pull all our troops out; they help out the economy.

However, it seems unlikely to me that the Japanese want us to pull all of our troops out - our military is essentially its only military defense.

Neither did I realize that those 38,000 troops in South Korea were playing any kind of meaningful role in stopping North Korean aggression -- unless you consider the fact that the whole damned South Korean military is still officially under AMERICAN control.

I don't know enough about Korea to speak on this, sorry.

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. "our military is essentially its only military defense." - hmmm - isn't

.
.
.

Isn't this because they won't ALLOW Japan to develop it's own defenses?

That's what I seem to remember.

. . :shrug: . .

[IrateCitizen]

13. Well, you're far from correct on Japan

Japan does have its own military -- but in keeping with its pacifist tendencies following WWII, it is to be used SOLELY for defensive purposes.

Furthermore, who exactly are we protecting Japan from, anyway? Especially Okinawa, which has the vast majority of US troops?

Do you realize that Okinawa was essentially a US military colony until 1972 -- twenty years after the return of Japanese sovereignty to Japan? Do you realize that the US troops there are pretty much HATED for their presence and lawlessness? Okinawa is also the poorest Japanese prefecture, too -- the presence of US troops there might be the equivalent of putting a chemical plant in South Central LA instead of Beverly Hills.

I don't think Germany is too keen on us being there anymore, either. The Cold War is over, and their economy doesn't need US troops there. Most of the US money is actually spent on AAFES facilities -- and the problems caused by the inevitable sexual assaults, drunkenness, and general lawlessness surrounding military areas surely outweighs the benefits.

WRT Korea, this is a reminant of the Korean War, where all forces were placed under UN-CINC command. This command was an American general, and the command was never relinquished.

Furthermore, look at it from the perspective of those living in other nations. Would YOU want troops from another country coming and living in YOUR town, along with the seedy strip bars and pawn shops and brothels that are sure to accompany them?

And I'll state again -- the Cold War is over. So what exactly ARE our troops doing in all these countries NOW?

[ConcernedCanuk]

14. I guess I didn't make my position very clear

.
.
.

I do NOT support the idea of the USA having it's troops all over the world.

If a country WANTS them there, that's that particular country's decision. But saying that, even countries that profess they want the US there, I suspect that there are "strings" attached, and "penalties" if the US were to pull out.

And in answer to your query regarding as to why the troops are there now?

I suspect it's all about control, and the ability to do whatever they want, wherever, and whenever.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. Okay, it looks like the "yes"'s have it , but will it happen?

.
.
.

I wonder . . .

[IrateCitizen]

10. Eventually it has to. Whether or not it is voluntary is another question.

The US will either realize it is in its best interest to dissolve its empire of bases, or its empire will eventually collapse.