Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'AWOT' started by cowboy1964, Jun 9, 2011.
I call BS.
Almost certainly *technically* true, if you count the US Marines that guard US Embassies as "troops on foreign soil."
If you include embassy security military, I think the number is much higher. HH
MSG Embassy security is not there to protect people--either the locals or the Americans. I'm not sure what "enemies" he thinks these people could be making.
Who knows where he got the number. It isn't critical. But we certainly do have a lot of bases spread out over the world. We have an empire. There is no way around that fact.
The guy's main point in the article though, is that we're drowning in debt as a nation. His reference to troops was merely saying that they're costing us a lot.
And yes, historically, empires can over-extend. Look at Rome. I think he has a valid point.
I certainly get your drift here and while it's a valid point, wouldn't US Embassies be considered US soil?
Yes they do, but "Empire"?
Thoughts such as his, while perhaps well meaning.....always make me think of someone who spends 3/4 of their paycheck on drugs and the other quarter on food. And they always seem to think shorting their food budget even further will help their bottom line.
This appears to make sense to them.
After I posted this I thought of embassy Marines.... but if that's what he's including he's just an idiot.
Yes, I wouldn't count those Marines. I was just trying to illustrate "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics"--I was trying to imagine a way that his statement could be technically true yet still not say anything.
But you should know sir, you just can't out mumble jumble those who are the masters of it.
In all due respect. Jim Rogers most investors know, he is a genius. You on the other hand are some guy(?) on a web site. Gee lets see, who is the most credible?
Looks like he got the number from Wikipedia:
It references this .PDF from 2007, which does indeed show deployments of our folks to about 150 countries:
And by my count, about half of those countries (74) have less than a dozen of our troops. Probably military advisors in many cases. Probably costs less to keep these folks in-country there for a year than the average congress-critter spends every weekend.
Soldiers overseas are soldiers overseas. Bring them all home. Eliminate all overseas bases period. Strip every base of everything down to the concrete. Bring all personnel and all material/equipment home. Auction the surplus. Put personnel into combat positions. If not able to serve or not needed, muster them out. Let them take their job skills into the civilian market. They will do the country more good there than overseas. As well, the many nations that now suck on the tit of the U.S. taxpayer will get to forage elsewhere for their finances. And if they ever again choose to ask for the "imperial" U.S. to come visit and help out with a problem, they can ask. They can always ask. Who knows. We might even lend them a water hose to help them douse their house fire... if they can pay. Never again should the U.S. ever help anyone anywhere unless it is in the provable best financial interest of the U.S. taxpayer. The opinions of non-tax payers and politicians are not relevant.