Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul for President
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1683719" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Likewise no longer in the 1800's are several countries that no longer require our sustained military presence in perpetuity. We still do so because of entrenched outside interests that do not coincide with the welfare of our nation. We do not need to withdraw from the national stage, we need to restructure our presence. Do we really need 30,000+ troops stationed in Korea when our Tomahawk missile, laser and satellite guided munitions capacity and technology literally eclipse the effective reach of the US into the DMZ of years past? Do we really need over 60,000 troops in Germany anymore? Do we still need almost 50,000 troops in Japan? Our warfighting doctrine has evolved significantly since these numbers were set, so why hold onto antiquated ideologies? I would contend that our projection of military strength would be far better served by spending that money on updating our fleet, amphibious, paratroop and air power than sending so many of our personel to fixed bases overseas for long periods. It would strengthen the flexibility of our response to emerging and imminent threats. It would also allow the possibility to de-escalate a number of conflicts and reduce the inflammatory presence of our troops. Hell, the mere presence of a military base near a military town in the U.S. is always a love-hate relationship. Imagine how much so in a foreign country? </p><p></p><p>The economies in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. are at least as good as our own, if not better at the moment. I'm not advocating that we withdraw from the international stage, but perhaps not monopolize it for a few years? I think that's a reasonable approach. I haven't seen anything from the Paul camp yet that rejects that stance. I think too many people interchange isolationism for interventionism. Several of the interventions we've embarked upon in the last few decades have worked against us in the long run. Perhaps we simply need better vetting of the crusades we're willing to undertake? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thanks. We're all mostly of like minded positions, we just differ on how to achieve them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1683719, member: 1132"] Likewise no longer in the 1800's are several countries that no longer require our sustained military presence in perpetuity. We still do so because of entrenched outside interests that do not coincide with the welfare of our nation. We do not need to withdraw from the national stage, we need to restructure our presence. Do we really need 30,000+ troops stationed in Korea when our Tomahawk missile, laser and satellite guided munitions capacity and technology literally eclipse the effective reach of the US into the DMZ of years past? Do we really need over 60,000 troops in Germany anymore? Do we still need almost 50,000 troops in Japan? Our warfighting doctrine has evolved significantly since these numbers were set, so why hold onto antiquated ideologies? I would contend that our projection of military strength would be far better served by spending that money on updating our fleet, amphibious, paratroop and air power than sending so many of our personel to fixed bases overseas for long periods. It would strengthen the flexibility of our response to emerging and imminent threats. It would also allow the possibility to de-escalate a number of conflicts and reduce the inflammatory presence of our troops. Hell, the mere presence of a military base near a military town in the U.S. is always a love-hate relationship. Imagine how much so in a foreign country? The economies in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. are at least as good as our own, if not better at the moment. I'm not advocating that we withdraw from the international stage, but perhaps not monopolize it for a few years? I think that's a reasonable approach. I haven't seen anything from the Paul camp yet that rejects that stance. I think too many people interchange isolationism for interventionism. Several of the interventions we've embarked upon in the last few decades have worked against us in the long run. Perhaps we simply need better vetting of the crusades we're willing to undertake? Thanks. We're all mostly of like minded positions, we just differ on how to achieve them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul for President
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
