As we've seen, deploying large armies abroad won't always be our best offense. Countries typically don't want foreign soldiers in their cities and towns.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Armies are not only for offensives.
I do not wish a foreign army to spill the blood of my people.
It's alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.
You can either invade a country or leave them alone and trade with them. When goods cross borders, armies don't.
There is no better way to give comfort to an enemy than to divide the people of a nation over the issue of foreign war. There is no shorter road to defeat than by entering a war with inadequate preparation.
The use of large-scale military force in volatile regions of underdeveloped countries is difficult to do right, has major unintended consequences and rarely turns out to be quick, effective, controlled and short lived.
If you want to hear arguments against deploying a big U.S. ground force in Syria, just ask a general.
It is a rule of international law that weapons and methods of warfare which do not discriminate between combatants and civilians should never be used.
I respectfully suggest the propriety of having stationed at the arsenal a full company of U. S. troops, that they may be made available in any emergency, from fire, insurrection, or any thing else.
I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.
No opposing quotes found.