Should your country have a standing military?

[Accountable]

It doesn't in any way strike you as a disadvantage?

Would you simarlarly kick out out any foreign military personal in the US?

The only foreign military personnel we have are students/trainees, high-ranking guests, and embassy guards. Our military, on the other hand, occupy defensive positions all over the world. The Cold War has been over for decades,

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel:

Personnel stationing
Overseas

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[17] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,222 in Germany (see list), the 33,122 in Japan (USFJ), 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 84,488 military personnel are located in Europe, 154 in the former Soviet Union, 70,719 in East Asia and the Pacific, 7,850 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 2,727 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 2,043 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.

Over 33,000 in Japan, and most of them on the tiny island of Okinawa. That's hardly embassy protection.

 

[dt3]

Over 33,000 in Japan, and most of them on the tiny island of Okinawa. That's hardly embassy protection.

It's a deterrent, and probably the only thing that has kept South Korea from becoming part of North Korea.

What better good would those 33,000 serve by being stationed in America? Unless you put them on the border, and I mean both borders, I can't think of any advantage gained by having them here.

Look at it another way, the military is our country's biggest jobs program. Almost no requirements to get in, they teach you a trade that most can use when they get out, pay for college, help with home loans, etc... For a lot of people, there is no better option than the military to get ahead in life.

 

[Minor Axis]

since when did america do it for free?....its not long ago that britain finished paying america for world war 2....then we back america up in the middle east at our expense

Good point. I was trying to be funny, an outcome I rarely achieve.

 

[Accountable]

It's a deterrent, and probably the only thing that has kept South Korea from becoming part of North Korea.

You don't think the 28,000 troops in South Korea has something to do with that? We've occupied S Korea for some 60 years. You'd think we'd have them weaned off of us by now if we wanted to.

What better good would those 33,000 serve by being stationed in America? Unless you put them on the border, and I mean both borders, I can't think of any advantage gained by having them here.

Here's a novel idea: cut gov't spending. Just because we employ 33,000 troops doesn't mean we have to or even should do so. The money saved would be astronomical. How about - now this is a bit radical so brace yourself - we let other sovereign nations protect themselves? We can do the same, meaning protect American soil. I hear there's a minor border issue in the US.

Look at it another way, the military is our country's biggest jobs program. Almost no requirements to get in, they teach you a trade that most can use when they get out, pay for college, help with home loans, etc... For a lot of people, there is no better option than the military to get ahead in life.

That's a pretty fucked up reason to violate another nation's sovereignty, dontcha think? It goes right down the liberal conspiracy theory about Bush & Co.: stir up fear of an imaginary enemy, or piss someone off until you've created a real one, to justify military spending which in turn stimulates the economy.

No thanks. The moral cost is too high. We should show the same respect of other nations' sovereignty that we demand of our own.

 

[dt3]

You don't think the 28,000 troops in South Korea has something to do with that? We've occupied S Korea for some 60 years. You'd think we'd have them weaned off of us by now if we wanted to.

Here's a novel idea: cut gov't spending. Just because we employ 33,000 troops doesn't mean we have to or even should do so. The money saved would be astronomical. How about - now this is a bit radical so brace yourself - we let other sovereign nations protect themselves? We can do the same, meaning protect American soil. I hear there's a minor border issue in the US.

That's a pretty fucked up reason to violate another nation's sovereignty, dontcha think? It goes right down the liberal conspiracy theory about Bush & Co.: stir up fear of an imaginary enemy, or piss someone off until you've created a real one, to justify military spending which in turn stimulates the economy.

No thanks. The moral cost is too high. We should show the same respect of other nations' sovereignty that we demand of our own.

You know damn well that our country isn't concerned about North Korea invading, the concern is about China. Please, enlighten me how we could possibly have trained the South Korean army to fight an enemy that outnumbers their whole population.

Wow, amazing thought on the border idea. I could've sworn that's exactly what I said though.

Is it violating any country's sovereignty to have our troops there? Every country signs a Status of Forces Agreement allowing our troops to be there and outlining what is expected from them. If a nation freely allows our troops to be there, who are you to decide that their sovereignty is being threatened?

 

[Accountable]

You know damn well that our country isn't concerned about North Korea invading, the concern is about China. Please, enlighten me how we could possibly have trained the South Korean army to fight an enemy that outnumbers their whole population.

China? You mean our most favored nation? Come on, DT. We give China whatever it wants, and if it wanted S Korea it would just take it, with our blessing. The only reason we haven't left S Korea is because of the jobs program you mentioned.

Wow, amazing thought on the border idea. I could've sworn that's exactly what I said though.

Except that you don't see the advantage.

Is it violating any country's sovereignty to have our troops there? YES! Every country signs a Status of Forces Agreement allowing our troops to be there and outlining what is expected from them. If a nation freely allows our troops to be there, who are you to decide that their sovereignty is being threatened?

Who's to say what was freely signed and what wasn't? If we're there at their request to protect them while they go about their lives, how are we anything more than mercenaries? Is that the ideal we enlist for as military men: to be the best mercenaries in the world??

Spending American lives to protect a nation that will not protect herself disrespects that nation just as feeding an able-bodied person disrespects him.

 

[dt3]

China? You mean our most favored nation? Come on, DT. We give China whatever it wants, and if it wanted S Korea it would just take it, with our blessing. The only reason we haven't left S Korea is because of the jobs program you mentioned.

Except that you don't see the advantage.

Who's to say what was freely signed and what wasn't? If we're there at their request to protect them while they go about their lives, how are we anything more than mercenaries? Is that the ideal we enlist for as military men: to be the best mercenaries in the world??

Spending American lives to protect a nation that will not protect herself disrespects that nation just as feeding an able-bodied person disrespects him.

Now who has the conspiracy theory? You're right, we should sell SK to China to pay off our debt :24:

I do see the advantage actually. That's what I said in my first post. The only thing they could do in the US that would be as worthwhile as what they're doing overseas is to guard both our borders. Maybe you misunderstood my post, but that was exactly my point.

The ideal we enlist for is to defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. The military doesn't set foreign policy, they enforce it. The military doesn't pay itself, your elected representatives pay it and tell it what to do. Your problem isn't with the military, it's with the foreign policy stance the US has taken over the last several decades.

Is it wrong to send our troops to put their ass on the line in some godforsaken foreign land? Hold on, let me go ask my friends who didn't leave Iraq with me. Yeah, it's fucking wrong. I don't like it one bit. But when you take that oath I mentioned above, you know the risks. Whether you disagree with the policy or not, you're still obligated to step up and enforce it. And they do, day in and day out, 365 days a year and 366 on leap years. "Ours is not to reason why."

I've said it before, but if it was up to the military to decide what wars to fight and when, THEN we would have world peace. As long as the politicians are pulling the strings and controlling the funding and giving the orders and making decisions based on political expedience rather than military necessity, then there is going to be problems. You'd think we would've learned the first time, but America is nothing if not hard-headed.

 

[Accountable]

Now who has the conspiracy theory? You're right, we should sell SK to China to pay off our debt :24:

:24: I think Hyundai might just be tempting enough to them.

I do see the advantage actually. That's what I said in my first post. The only thing they could do in the US that would be as worthwhile as what they're doing overseas is to guard both our borders. Maybe you misunderstood my post, but that was exactly my point.

Good. It felt weird being on opposite sides w/ you.

The ideal we enlist for is to defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. The military doesn't set foreign policy, they enforce it. The military doesn't pay itself, your elected representatives pay it and tell it what to do. Your problem isn't with the military, it's with the foreign policy stance the US has taken over the last several decades.

Absolutomondo!!

I've said it before, but if it was up to the military to decide what wars to fight and when, THEN we would have world peace. As long as the politicians are pulling the strings and controlling the funding and giving the orders and making decisions based on political expedience rather than military necessity, then there is going to be problems. You'd think we would've learned the first time, but America is nothing if not hard-headed.

:nod::thumbup

 

[Zorak]

The only foreign military personnel we have are students/trainees, high-ranking guests, and embassy guards. Our military, on the other hand, occupy defensive positions all over the world. The Cold War has been over for decades,

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Personnel:

I know for a fact there are a number of Ghurka's based in the USA :dunno

 

[Accountable]

I know for a fact there are a number of Ghurka's based in the USA :dunno

A number? Is it in the thousands? Tens of thousands? Do they have a military installation in the US that is considered Nepalese soil, that American citizens may not visit without express permission?

This is all I could find online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha#United_States_Navy

United States Navy

The United States Navy employs Gurkha guards as sentries at its base in Naval Support Activity Bahrain and on the US Navy side of the pier at Mina Salaman. The Gurkhas work alongside Navy members in day-to-day operations.

 

[Minor Axis]

You don't think the 28,000 troops in South Korea has something to do with that? We've occupied S Korea for some 60 years. You'd think we'd have them weaned off of us by now if we wanted to.

The U.S. has always considered this kind of a presence a good one for world stability such as keeping N.Korea from invading S.Korea. I have no idea what it's costing to do this. Anyone know? Is the price worth it now especially with us on the brink of national bankruptcy? The kind of military force the U.S. has maintained since WWII is a luxury I don't think we can continue to fund.

Oh my god, some of our citizens will shake in their boots, how will we defend ourselves? I wonder how all the other countries in the world deal with it? Btw, I'm not suggesting we abandon a military force, just reduce it to the purpose of defending our borders. If worse comes to worse, we still have nukes in the hip pocket. (Heaven help us if it comes to that.)

 

[Accountable]

The U.S. has always considered this kind of a presence a good one for world stability such as keeping N.Korea from invading S.Korea. I have no idea what it's costing to do this. Anyone know? Is the price worth it now especially with us on the brink of national bankruptcy? The kind of military force the U.S. has maintained since WWII is a luxury I don't think we can continue to fund.

Oh my god, some of our citizens will shake in their boots, how will we defend ourselves? I wonder how all the other countries in the world deal with it? Btw, I'm not suggesting we abandon a military force, just reduce it to the purpose of defending our borders. If worse comes to worse, we still have nukes in the hip pocket. (Heaven help us if it comes to that.)

I know Japan pays the lion's share of the cost to keep us there. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that our troops are being used as mercenaries. I assume that S Korea pays substantially less than Japan does. Are we still pretending that's a UN force over there?