|
US to withdraw selected troop divisions from overseas (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
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? |
your right also. most people in the military don't realize what they may be getting into during peace time. thats another subject altogether.
i'm refering to a point of view that inolves a commander's strategic role in preparing his troops. a harsh reality that i was trying to imply is that prior to Iraq/Afganistan/greater Middle East we had a stagnant posture that involved all the high tech training and simulated scenarios imaginable. training that only prepares a soldier or sailor for so much. there is no substitute for real-world conflict. read what you will into that and your probably right in some ways. therein lies the harsh reality. |
|
|
| imokruok |
Well, despite the consensus here that the troop withdrawal is a good thing, Lurch can't keep his mouth shut.
| quote: |
Kerry to blast Bush troop plans
BBC News
18 August 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575830.stm
Military strategy is a key plank of both presidential campaigns
The Democratic challenger for the White House is set to criticise President George W Bush's decision to recall about 70,000 US troops based abroad.
In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Cincinnati, Ohio, John Kerry is expected to say the decision may hurt US security, Kerry aides have said.
Mr Bush announced the move in a speech before the same audience on Monday.
Ohio is seen as a key battleground state and correspondents say Mr Kerry is keen to win the support of veterans.
'Alienating' allies
Mr Bush told the veteran he planned to redeploy or recall up to 70,000 troops in Asia and Europe - many in former Cold War hotspots - so they are ready to face "the challenges of the future".
But Mr Kerry will tell the VFW convention on Wednesday the plans risk alienating US allies at a time when the support of such allies is needed in the global fight against al-Qaeda, a senior campaign official told the Associated Press news agency.
Military strategy and readiness is a key point of combat for the Bush and Kerry campaigns in the run-up to US presidential elections in November, correspondents say.
When he addressed the veterans on Monday, Mr Bush slammed what he described as Mr Kerry's plans to reduce force numbers in Iraq during the first six months of his presidency, should he win.
|
|
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
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. |
While this may be true to some extent, in previous times empires didn't care what other people thought, they just owned land around the world. In this time, people get outraged when you are in their land but they also want it both ways and want protection in their time of need. It doesn't work this way however so you either want us there or you want us out.
About nations building armies. Well, I think treaties such as NATO prevents a lot of this as one country attacked would be seen as an attack on all and no one wants superpowers allied with a country you attack . So I dont think there will be a great arms race, aside from teh countries who have beed doing so already for years, India, Pakistan, NK, China etc.
We all know that 36,000 troops in South Korea if anything happened would mean nothing. They would probably be obliterated in a matter of days, being outnumbered over 100 to 1 as they are on the front lines. They only serve as a trigger point deterrent in case NK attack and the US would have to be in the war as it would an attack on our own troops. To me they are unneccesary as in a war they would be just cannon fodder before any real force could arrive. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Well, Kerry, been the on that same croud that Bush was just days ago.. Kerry got a Standing Ovation, I think that means something?:p |
|
|
| imokruok |
Today, Kerry blasts the President's decision on the troops. But hey! Wait a minute! What did Kerry say two weeks ago? Let's go to the tape...
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Today, Kerry blasts the President's decision on the troops. But hey! Wait a minute! What did Kerry say two weeks ago? Let's go to the tape...
|
is he chasing his tail, or is his tail chasing him.
what came first? the chiken or the egg.
whos on first. whats on second. i don't knows on third. |
|
|
| smokeape |
In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
I believe Europe is quiet, and Asia is quiet for the very reason that the USA has troops there. Had the middle east enjoyed the presence of a USA garrison, this war on terrorism would never have existed.
Although there is certainly no danger, and apparently no threat, warranting these troops there, I fear withdrawing them will welcome these new uncertainties to these vacant virgin grounds in the years to come.
...
Although Kerry is obviously flip-flopping and doing this for political reasons, I have to agree with him on this issue after further thought. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I believe Europe is quiet, and Asia is quiet for the very reason that the USA has troops there. Had the middle east enjoyed the presence of a USA garrison, this war on terrorism would never have existed.
Although there is certainly no danger, and apparently no threat, warranting these troops there, I fear withdrawing them will welcome these new uncertainties to these vacant virgin grounds in the years to come.
...
Although Kerry is obviously flip-flopping and doing this for political reasons, I have to agree with him on this issue after further thought. |
HeH, you finally gave it a thought! :p |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
HeH, you finally gave it a thought! :p |
;)
it wasn't easy. But when examining all of history, I never saw a good thing happen when a garrison was pulled.
Always years after there would be trouble... |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| If they want our troops there to protect them then they should be the ones paying the bill, not our taxpayers. If they say they don't need us then lets get out and spend our money where it is needed, here at home. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
Your smoking Too Much!:D |
|
|
|
|
