The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should we pull U.S troops out of every country in the world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 827 times Debate No: 54567
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Hi, I want to thank my opponent who wishes to have a debate on this heated issue. I want some insight from people who think our presence in the world is needed.

The first round will be for acceptance, of course, second is for stating our stance, third is rebuttal, and forth is closing, pretty straight forward. No need to drag it out.

This will not get personal by ANY means. I'll just say it right off the bat, my family does in fact has a long Military tradition, and yours may or may not, but in no way does it make me know more or less on the topic regardless if my family has served or not, nor if I have even served, so that is irrelevant.

Again, welcome and let's debate!


Hey, and thanks for letting me debate on this key issue. I am very excited for a great debate concerning many deep foreign relation discussions.

I am excited to see the framework of your arguments and what you bring up as far as the reasons for these actions

I wish you luck and let us debate!!!!

Debate Round No. 1


Well I do not believe our presence in the world is needed. We have 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries and bases established in almost every major point in the world, even where there is no threat to the U.S. The funding for these bases and active military personnel cost U.S taxpayers billions of dollars to just have troops stationed in a foreign country and do nothing but patrol.

Since 9/11 we have started 2 wars, which financially we were not capable of, and the War in Afghanistan continues. However, if I was more thoroughly convinced that we were attacked by these specific terrorists, then It MIGHT be a different story. Not going into 9/11, but there was no formal investigation into the incident and the 9/11 report was rather based on "intel", not an investigation. So why are we in the Middle East now? Oil.... We are not in the Middle East, ultimately the world, to "instill foreign diplomacy", but rather to have other countries loosen up trade barriers when it comes to exports. We have our presence in other countries as a method of trade. In the Middle East, we knew before even 9/11 that there were major Oil and Lithium deposits that could power so much of our new technology, so our incentive was to demolish the governments over there and to establish a "free market" type of economy in the Middle East.

So when it comes to bringing our troops home from the world bases, it needs to be done soon. I don't want our soldiers killing anymore people in ANY country when there is no direct threat of war in the world. Actually, just by being so prevalent in the world is making us a target because we are destroying traditional society in countries. We wouldn't like it if Russians set up shop in Alaska, would we? The U.S is fighting a war and deploying troops worldwide in a effort to save our economy and open up trade barriers. They are economic soldiers. They are not ambassadors, they are soldiers who protect America when the time comes, or have at least have authority to do so. And, the U.S can best be protected when all of our troops are HERE. If there is a breakout of fighting in a foreign country, it's not an argument that we need to be there right away to aid, with modern transportation, we can be anywhere in the world in probably less than 10 hours. At least a Boeing 777 can...


Since the question I have been given today takes into account all U.S. troops, that is what this case shall be based on. It is because I value the United States national security that I stand resolved that the United States should pull out some troops but leave others in strategic locations. There are multiple reasons and the first will be applied through WWII. Pearl Harbor was one of the greatest breaches of national security to ever take place. Let's take a step back and examine what was going on in the rest of the world. Almost the entirety of Europe was at war with the axis powers. This huge war was causing turmoil in many ways throughout the world. The U.S. was completely uninvolved with the war at the start. When the rest of the world lost their international stability, the U.S. was drawn into the conflict. The United States was drawn into this conflict because the surroundings affect the entity. Now imagine if we had occupied certain places in the Pacific Ocean. We would have been able to see the bombing airplanes coming and would have been able to mitigate the conflict before it harmed 2000+ Americans. The idea here is acting preemptively. If we pull out completely, it will harm our national security beyond compare. If we keep our troops in strategic locations, then we can use it to the best of our advantage.

Also, soldiers sign up for the national defense for the purpose of national security. Economy is one of the portions of national security. Therefore, our soldiers fighting in the Middle East are fighting for what they signed up for. Protection U.S. National security. And if we pulled out of everywhere, assuming we could get there in 10 hours, a number of things could go wrong. One, it is entirely possible for a country to annex another within 10 hours. Two, while we may be able to get airplanes there in time, we would not be able to mobilize troops which is sometimes necessary.

About your argument of Russia setting up shop in Russia, the U.S. is stationed mostly in places that they have been welcomed in. If they have not been welcomed in, there is essentially a war. I can tell you right now that if Russia came into Alaska without invitation from the U.S., that there would be more conflict then there already is between Russia and the U.S.

All in all, we might be able to pull some troops out of some countries but for the sake of national security, we must stay in some countries. This will allow us to protect ourselves and those countries as well.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok so now for rebuttals regarding previous arguments.

Regarding 1st Paragraph: National Security means exactly how it sounds, National. As I said, the best way we can defend ourselves is to have our troops home defending our own country. The reason we are faced with a security problem today is because we are self-inducing conflict by locating in hostile territories with internal conflicts and non-hostile territories. However, there is a difference with placing bases, and more specifically embassies, in areas for TRULY diplomatic reasons, but the U.S has the most bases in non-hostile areas (Japan, Germany, South Korea) with no threat to the United States. Besides Afghanistan, the second place we have most of our troops is in Japan with about 50,000 active duty. No National Security threat there, only thing it's doing is costing billions of dollars to keep the bases operational. So today we should leave troops in strategic locations, for what? What do we have to strategize for? Another place to drone innocent civilians due to the War on Terror, which does more harm than good? And we have not been "attacked" since 9/11, and we fought our fights, when should we admit our losses and pull out? It will save so much lives and lessen aggression over in the Middle East with the U.S. We won't be hurting traditional values amongst the Muslim people.

Also, In WW2, saying that if we would have had more bases in the Pacific, we could have stopped the attacks is kind of hasty and irrelevant. If we really wanted to avoid conflict with Japan, what could have we done? Ended the embargo with Japan and stayed out of their war with China. All because we didn't support Japanese aggression and them fighting their war, we cut off their oil and other valuable resources during the war. Which, ultimately, led to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. So if we placed bases in the Pacific to isolate Japan near their waters and still upheld the embargo, that is essentially a declaration of war, and gives Japan the right to retaliate for their security. If China cut off their exports to the U.S and stationed around our perimeter, we would take it as a declaration of war. So if wanted to save not 2,000 just at Pearl Harbor, but another 100,000 people overall, we could have not intervened with Japan in the first place and let the Chinese and Japanese to decide how they wish to go about their conflicts. The 2nd Sino-Japanese War wasn't a global-scale threat, until the embargo which really set off the Japanese.

2nd paragraph: Yes National Security includes economics, but at the stake of the survival of a nation. The U.S isn't on the brink of collapse, we are involved economically in the Middle East is because we want cheaper resources because our oil/gas reserves in the U.S require too much regulation and initial expenses which the government doesn't want to deal with. And I believe none of our soldiers want to fight the war on terror and risk their lives, but that is an opinion. I also find it extremely unlikely that if we pull out of places, there will be chaos. If a country really wanted to annex another country for their benefit, they would do anything in their power to do so, whether if it means peaceful negotiation, or a flat out war. Like Russia, they could care less that Americans are stationed all throughout Eastern Europe, they need Crimea for personal gain. Crimea is their key warm water port. If there was, hypothetically, a breakout of war right after U.S troops left, why does America have to be the first ones there to fight, does no other country have a military to protect international security? Right when we pull out, they aren't going to cross the ocean to attack us when they could have attacked us when we were already there.

3rd paragraph: No country welcomes another country in to establish their military presence... That is like welcoming in robbers to someones home because they robbed before. We are in countries like Japan and Germany because in the treaty after the war, we said they HAVE to allow us to establish bases or consequences could be dire. And who doesn't want to take advantage of power? No country in history. In Afghanistan, we were not welcomed in, or Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter.

So I know it may look like from my arguments that I'm a pacifist, or Anti-War. Not true, I just don't support fighting wars that we ourselves either start, or can avoid by simple negotiations. I don't want soldiers to die in a meaningless campaign. I supported intervention in Germany because their threat of establishing communism throughout Europe would ultimately affect the U.S politically and economically. Pacific Theater was due to being nosy in a 2-country conflict that could have worked itself out with the helps of peace talk from other nations.


Timbeast forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Oh, that's unfortunate. Well, I do wish that you do at least post your closing thoughts or any rebuttals to end the argument on a fair note.

But the last thing I can say to you and the voters is this, the last thing we need as a country is to spend more money. We spend billions and trillions of dollars on programs with no intent of slowing down. But it can start with cutting welfare, then reform healthcare, but absolutely cut defense drastically, specifically the international bases. We still have troops dying in Afghanistan for no cause whatsoever, for a campaign not in instill a democratic society in the Middle East, but to dismember local governments over there and open up trade on the oil rigs. America is turning into one big corporation and whoever has the money makes the rules.

Not only are we in a war that won't end, but we have the most troops still in Japan and Germany 73 years later. We don't need our Military presence in a place where there is no threat to national security. We said in the treaty that we are able to establish bases because back then we wanted to prevent another rise of oppression, fair enough. But 73 years later when there society is more developed than ours and have more successful governments... I think it's safe that their society is doing pretty well. Our country can best be protected when our troops and stationed at home protecting us at home, and if a true war breaks out somewhere, they can be deployed in a moments via our great transportation methods.

I'm a believer in not initiating force on peaceful people and would RATHER have negotiations or talks than to just start fighting. Although in few circumstances war is necessary. Today in Crimea, Russia sends in troops not with the intent to kill (although they will in a heartbeat), but to establish their presence and disrupt the peace of the country to cause havoc so Russia has a better chance of annexation. Even though circumstances are different, I don't want our soldiers in other countries doing anything when the people are not doing anything harmful or threats. In some cases, we have caught soldiers raping the people of a country in places like South Korea, Japan, and others. It's just gotten to the point where we are not needed, and when America is not needed, we come home. So let's just worry about our own economy and cross the topic of war when we really need to again.


Timbeast forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct-con forfeit arguments pro arguments direct and to the point, con arguments just not as relevant or convincing.