US Troops overseas: Is this needed anymore?

[Pudding Time]

Thought I'd start a debate on this. Seems there are people with a points of view on each side.

I myself don't think it's need with todays military technology. SF's can land anywhere within 24 hours. And missile strikes can take place in less than 24 hours. We have the technology, so the money spent on keeping troops overseas could be used to fix economic problems back home.

You?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

I think it is important to maintain a military presence around the world. While I disagree with the whole Iraq thing, having troops use to being away from home is important.

 

[Jersey]

I'm not real sure they ever get "used to" being away... they just have to deal

 

[debbie t]

no we dont if you want better health care and education at home ..but they are there to flex muscles and make a statement ,its strategic and a symbol of power,in the way that Edward built all those castles in Wales

as for peace keeping forces like UN troops they are quite often humanitarian which i think is right and proper

 

[Pudding Time]

I'm sure the world knows of the US's muscle when it comes to it's military. I just can't think of a logical or strategic reason for having mass amounts of troops at overseas postings. If trouble erupted anywhere in the world, the US and allies could use bombings to subdue and hostilities. Not too mention ICBM's and other long range missiles.

 

[debbie t]

true,but then get rid of the infantry completely,then bases and foot soldiers arent necessary.

i think we have police actions as opposed to wars mostly and bombs do not save innocent people or oil wells.the muscle flexing does at least mean that there is a kind of respect for the man on the ground,making those type of jobs easier

 

[dt3]

I'm not real sure they ever get "used to" being away... they just have to deal

You'd be surprised just how easy it is to get used to being 13 hours ahead of everybody you know on the other side of the world. It ain't that bad.

I'm sure the world knows of the US's muscle when it comes to it's military. I just can't think of a logical or strategic reason for having mass amounts of troops at overseas postings. If trouble erupted anywhere in the world, the US and allies could use bombings to subdue and hostilities. Not too mention ICBM's and other long range missiles.

Absolutely NOTHING can replace boots on the ground. Sure, the Special Forces can get anywhere in 24 hours. But how many people is that? A platoon or a company? Not gonna do a whole lot of good in a lot of situations. Let's say (hypothetically) we pull everybody back to the US and N Korea invades S Korea. What's our Special Forces contingent going to do? Get run over. The way it is now, I can assure you we could have a whole lot more people than that on the ground in less than 72 hours.

Besides, since this was your example, if the SF can deploy anywhere in 24 hours, imaging how fast they can do it if they aren't a 12 hour plane flight away?

 

[All Else Failed]

you will always need people on the ground.

 

[GraceAbounds]

US Troops overseas: Is this needed anymore?

Yes..

 

[All Else Failed]

Now where they ARE and whether or not they should be there in the first place is a better question.

 

[dt3]

Now where they ARE and whether or not they should be there in the first place is a better question.

I can agree somewhat with this statement. What I'm referring to is where troops get stationed, not where they get deployed. There's an important distinction to be made there.

I don't know of any host country where we have troops permanently stationed that doesn't like the benefits of having those troops there.

 

[Breath]

US Troops overseas: Is this needed anymore?

Yes.
It's the grand scale, the global presence.
Just like you want your police force to be visible and present on a local level, it's the same on an international level.

 

[dt3]

Nothing says "Bitch, I'll fucking murder you" like a Carrier Battle Group off the coast of some pissant dictator.

 

[Pudding Time]

true,but then get rid of the infantry completely,then bases and foot soldiers arent necessary.

i think we have police actions as opposed to wars mostly and bombs do not save innocent people or oil wells.the muscle flexing does at least mean that there is a kind of respect for the man on the ground,making those type of jobs easier

Standard infantry is rather obsolete today. All you really need is SF, and FBI and CIA agents on the ground.

Heck, Bushie loves him some Mercenaries

 

[dt3]

Standard infantry is rather obsolete today. All you really need is SF, and FBI and CIA agents on the ground.

Heck, Bushie loves him some Mercenaries

That's 100% completely inaccurate. Nothing will EVER replace the infantry. Nothing can. The "Special Forces" you seem so fond of are completely incapable of holding any amount of ground for an extended period of time, which is pretty much the standard method of warfare since the beginning of time.

 

[Pudding Time]

You'd be surprised just how easy it is to get used to being 13 hours ahead of everybody you know on the other side of the world. It ain't that bad.


Absolutely NOTHING can replace boots on the ground. Sure, the Special Forces can get anywhere in 24 hours. But how many people is that? A platoon or a company? Not gonna do a whole lot of good in a lot of situations. Let's say (hypothetically) we pull everybody back to the US and N Korea invades S Korea. What's our Special Forces contingent going to do? Get run over. The way it is now, I can assure you we could have a whole lot more people than that on the ground in less than 72 hours.

Besides, since this was your example, if the SF can deploy anywhere in 24 hours, imaging how fast they can do it if they aren't a 12 hour plane flight away?

If North Korea invades South Korea, then South Korea can send there own foot soldiers while the US bombs the living shit out of North Korea.

Why do you insist on sending Americans to die for other countries? ESPECIALLY with today's technology?

And SF could assisnate Kim Jong Il. Invasion stops. Don't ever doubt the capability of SF.

All these tanks and ground troops aren't needed. All you need is reconnaissance and missiles.

 

[Pudding Time]

You'd be surprised just how easy it is to get used to being 13 hours ahead of everybody you know on the other side of the world. It ain't that bad.

Actually it sucks

 

[Pudding Time]

I don't know of any host country where we have troops permanently stationed that doesn't like the benefits of having those troops there.

F' the other countries...

The benefits that could be reaped for Americans bringing the troops back home should be of more concern.

Since America is on a downward spiral, I say it's time to think about yourself, rather than other countries.

 

[dt3]

Actually it sucks

I didn't have a problem with it. I spent 2 years of my 5 year enlistment overseas. 1 year at a duty station and 1 year deployed.

 

[dt3]

If North Korea invades South Korea, then South Korea can send there own foot soldiers while the US bombs the living shit out of North Korea.

Why do you insist on sending Americans to die for other countries? ESPECIALLY with today's technology?

And SF could assisnate Kim Jong Il. Invasion stops. Don't ever doubt the capability of SF.

All these tanks and ground troops aren't needed. All you need is reconnaissance and missiles.

If S Korea could hold their own, we wouldn't have been there for the last 50 years. And for every dictator you assassinate, there's another one waiting to come out of the woodwork.