It is a good idea, when troops have been stationed in places that were long gone out of trouble. I think it was about time, though it's not SO good if it takes away from South Korea, though I read those will stay put.. at least a good quanity.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

good move imo

i think you should withdraw a lot of more troops from the middle east too. would be a better move anti-terror wise....

anyone for a little partisan action on this one? 'cause thats all i've heard here in the states about this sad.

solid decision for the new century. you can thank the mighty U.S. Navy in part for this.


as for the troops in the Middle East, i have a strange feeling that a signifigant percentage (30-40%) will be drawn back either to Kuwait or stateside in the next few months. it's a long limb to be out on, i know, but thats what my gut tells me.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo anyone for a little partisan action on this one? 'cause thats all i've heard here in the states about this sad. solid decision for the new century. you can thank the mighty U.S. Navy in part for this. as for the troops in the Middle East, i have a strange feeling that a signifigant percentage (30-40%) will be drawn back either to Kuwait or stateside in the next few months. it's a long limb to be out on, i know, but thats what my gut tells me.

The thing that's left to do, is to stop overworking the allready overworked troops.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Great move long overdue. I dont think we need such a massive presense in Japan either, although I guess it is considered a quick reaction force to any action by either North Korea on Seoul or China on Taiwan. I also think we should move our troops out of the Koreas, people want us to stop meddling in world affairs and this would be the first step to let the world be self defensive.

I would like to see some charts or graphs on how much money would be saved yearly by such moves.

i'm not a grunt, much respect for those that are, but the "troops" have been sitting on their helmets for a while prior to Iraq. again, i say this with the utmost repect. You have to look at troop readiness from a commanders perspective and forget what you know about real-world (civilian) needs. a commanders worst nightmare is a soldier or sailor that has the most advanced weapons and training at his/her disposal, everything needed to overcome the objective, and not be able to fight on the battlefield when called upon to do so when war has been declared. one of the goals as a General or Admiral is to get as many battle-hardened, seasoned, senior veterans of real-world conflict within his ranks to support and command the younger and inexperienced personel for the next generation of conflict.

does this apply to Iraq? yes i'm afraid it does, in ways you might not imagine. i'm not bragging when i say that the U.S. is the best in the world at it.

there is a saying in the military. military life is excruciatingly long periods of utter boredom, interupted by moments of sheer terror.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm not a grunt, much respect for those that are, but the "troops" have been sitting on their helmets for a while prior to Iraq. again, i say this with the utmost repect. You have to look at troop readiness from a commanders perspective and forget what you know about real-world (civilian) needs. a commanders worst nightmare is a soldier or sailor that has the most advanced weapons and training at his/her disposal, everything needed to overcome the objective, and not be able to fight on the battlefield when called upon to do so when war has been declared. one of the goals as a General or Admiral is to get as many battle-hardened, seasoned, senior veterans of real-world conflict within his ranks to support and command the younger and inexperienced personel for the next generation of conflict. does this apply to Iraq? yes i'm afraid it does, in ways you might not imagine. i'm not bragging when i say that the U.S. is the best in the world at it. there is a saying in the military. military life is excruciatingly long periods of utter boredom, interupted by moments of sheer terror.

I think that if your looking to enter the military, this should give you the best push!!! ..

Come on.. I have friends in Iraq, and thats not entirely true. They are told something, such as.. "your going to Iraq for only 6 months".. BLAAAAAAAH.. they go there to stay for who knows.. and about half the people there, get into the army because of their offers and incentives, not because they really want to. Messed up isnt it?

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

It's about time we did this.

I never understood why we've been protecting Germany from a non-existent foreign adversary for the last 15 years.

It would seem prudent to keep some force presence in East Asia, however, given 1) North Korea, 2) the burgeoning terrorist movement in places like Phillipines, Indonesia

quote:

i think you should withdraw a lot of more troops from the middle east too. would be a better move anti-terror wise....

Solid logic

A couple points on this. One, playing pure defense means sometimes you'll be too late. What good is 'homeland security' if theres already a nuke sitting in one of our harbors? Oh great, we've detected a nuke thats already on our territory....in a massive population centre....

Second, the people who are actually crazy enough to plan mass murder, and kill themselves in the process, don't care whether our troops are located here or there.

the 3-11 Madrid bombings were planned long before the Iraqi invasion. The terrorists best friends, the Europeans, are having a hell of a time cracking all the terrorist circles operating throughout, particularly in France and Germany, 2 countries who have pursued policies that could be described as sympathetic to the Islamist cause.
Even after the 3-11 bombings and Zapatero's election, the terrorist cell responsible for the bombing was planning more attacks until they blew themselves up in a shootout with Spanish police.

Its not ours or your policies they hate, its us. probably 90% of Europeans don't get this, and perhaps 40% of Americans don't. What type of wake up call will be required? Or will a massive attack obviously be Bush's fault?

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Solid logic A couple points on this. One, playing pure defense means sometimes you'll be too late. What good is 'homeland security' if theres already a nuke sitting in one of our harbors? Oh great, we've detected a nuke thats already on our territory....in a massive population centre....

defence is not only about direct defence, but also about indirect defence. a great majority of the arabs are pissed of cause of your presence in that region, if you could decrease it, less people would be ngry at you and therfore al quaida would also have a more difficult way of recruiting members.

quote:

Second, the people who are actually crazy enough to plan mass murder, and kill themselves in the process, don't care whether our troops are located here or there.

same point as above.

quote:

the 3-11 Madrid bombings were planned long before the Iraqi invasion. The terrorists best friends, the Europeans, are having a hell of a time cracking all the terrorist circles operating throughout, particularly in France and Germany, 2 countries who have pursued policies that could be described as sympathetic to the Islamist cause. Even after the 3-11 bombings and Zapatero's election, the terrorist cell responsible for the bombing was planning more attacks until they blew themselves up in a shootout with Spanish police.

Source that they planned the madrid bombings before spain planned on joining the iraq war?

quote:

Its not ours or your policies they hate, its us. probably 90% of Europeans don't get this, and perhaps 40% of Americans don't. What type of wake up call will be required? Or will a massive attack obviously be Bush's fault?

again, proof? i honestly don't think they just started to hate you for no reason whatsoever. perhaps the most fundamentalistic leaders will never change the opinion about the US, but they will have far more problems recruiting new troops for a war against you if you don't cause any trouble for them.

quote:

anyone for a little partisan action on this one?

Some actions don't always call for partisan viewpoints. Some actions are just the right actions, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.

To me this is certainly one of those situations.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

its hard for me to decide whether this is a smart, or otherly dumb decission the USA is making in redeploying troops.

Historically, all ancient empires had large garrisons and naval bases around there sphere of influences. These bases kept them strong, and typically prevented any uprising or trouble from the areas of control.

When economic or political reform struck, and these bases were dismantel, the empires were soon lose much of their might, wealth, and power within a few decades.

The ancient Athenians prove a great example of this with their league of Delphi. However, they were much more clever. Not only did they get the approval of their fellow 'allies' to surrender their security to the league (which was run by Athens), but the Athenians also got them to pay tribute for this. So in esence, the allies were funding the Athenian army instead of their own. This kept them in great might for many years.

Our situation today is slightly reversed. The USA has gotten most the world to forefit militaries by simply telling them they don't need one anymore, and that the USA will pay for their military expenses. Being that the USA is in action a benevolent nation, and a good caretaker, it isn't outrages for nations to agree to this sort of arrangement.

Now because of economic, or political concerns, or maybe even a belief that simply technology has let us overcome, the USA is thinking of voiding this arrangement.

And thats the scary part. Without the USA world-wide security garuntee, you will get more nations building up their militaries, although this might be a good thing for a short period (it will defintely make the world more appreciative of USA's bargin arrangment to them), in the long run this might not be as pleasent. I've never known of an idle European army... And we've all know what European armies are capable of.

If this realignment is simply the result of new technical achievement, whereby the USA is still able to garuntee the same security to Europe and the rest of the world, I have no problem. However, if this is a realignment for purely other reasons, then I'd have to be strictly against it.

Simply, I don't care how much Europe bickers and moans about American care taking of world affairs, where as the author of the article clearly illustrates this is the inverse proportion of their ability to do something about it. I'll let Europe bicker and moan any day of the week, so long as it will mantain the global hegemony afforded to us by the USA.

When the USA loses such hegemony, it will simply not be as good a world we live in as today - and that goes for the entire world, not just the Americans.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.