NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040815185451.4fxqsen6.html

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040815185451.4fxqsen6.html

Best thing is that they go out of EU. Enough rapes and other crimes done by "some" parts of the US troops in EU. They think that they are above the law here. So, Bush needs his boys, send them!

I picked "Other" I think it's good, the US doesn't need to be in Europe any more. The Cold War is over. Now, taking troops out of S. Korea is another story in my opinion.

Go back, reread the PNAC manifesto, and note how this falls - yet again - perfectly in alignment with the original plans....

You notice how the building of the permanent US bases in IRaq doesn't get much coverage in the news? Oh wait... they aren't being called "permanent"... they are "Enduring bases"...

Gee... you would almost think that they weren't intending to leave....

:rolleyes:

I picked "Other" I think it's good, the US doesn't need to be in Europe any more. The Cold War is over. Now, taking troops out of S. Korea is another story in my opinion.
I don't think they are actually being moved out of the country. I think that they are simply moving south, away from the DMZ. They'll still be part of any defense for South Korea, but they won't be the sacrificial lambs on the DMZ. I don't agree with it myself, but hey, it's what the Pentagon feels it needs to do.

I don't think they are actually being moved out of the country. I think that they are simply moving south, away from the DMZ. They'll still be part of any defense for South Korea, but they won't be the sacrificial lambs on the DMZ. I don't agree with it myself, but hey, it's what the Pentagon feels it needs to do.

Didn't they already announce pulling 12,500 from South Korea?

(edit to add link)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001950804_koreatroops07.html

Yep.

Go back, reread the PNAC manifesto, and note how this falls - yet again - perfectly in alignment with the original plans....

You notice how the building of the permanent US bases in IRaq doesn't get much coverage in the news? Oh wait... they aren't being called "permanent"... they are "Enduring bases"...

Gee... you would almost think that they weren't intending to leave....

:rolleyes:
I'd think that long after the US isn't needed, some bases will be in the country to host maybe an army brigade and some warplanes. Not many, but a few will be there. After all, Iraq is an extremely stragic country in the Middle East as far as geography goes.

I'd think that long after the US isn't needed, some bases will be in the country to host maybe an army brigade and some warplanes. Not many, but a few will be there. After all, Iraq is an extremely stragic country in the Middle East as far as geography goes.

Plus, it get them out of Saudi Arabia.... which incidently was one of Osama's demands....

Plus, it get them out of Saudi Arabia.... which incidently was one of Osama's demands....
Already out of Saudi Arabia, except for a few Special Forces training with the Saudi army, and helping to protect Western civilians there.

I'd think that long after the US isn't needed, some bases will be in the country to host maybe an army brigade and some warplanes. Not many, but a few will be there. After all, Iraq is an extremely stragic country in the Middle East as far as geography goes.

Actually, they are building 14 bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Best thing is that they go out of EU. Enough rapes and other crimes done by "some" parts of the US troops in EU. They think that they are above the law here. So, Bush needs his boys, send them!

WTF are you babbling about? If you knew anything, you'd know that US forces based in other countries are bound by a Status of Forces agreement, detailing how they are bound by the host nations laws. So blame your own government for not prosecuting these "supposed" cases. Or go find somewhere else for your america bashing.

Actually, they are building 14 bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
Yeah, but most will inevitably be deconstructed in the next five years or so. Only about four or five will truely be long term. I actually saw it in a news article on the same site months ago.

Yeah, but most will inevitably be deconstructed in the next five years or so. Only about four or five will truely be long term. I actually saw it in a news article on the same site months ago.

Well, we'll have to see won't we.

Personally, I feel this was a long time coming. It took at least twelve years between the fall of the Soviet Union and the attack on America. In those twelve years, what were we defending Germany from? Space aliens?
I also wonder what this means for US troops in Iceland.

Well, we'll have to see won't we.
I guess so. But I doubt many will be needed in the long term.

bump

Personally, I wish all our troops were withdrawn from abroad and returned home.

70,000 troops in harmless Germany and only 11,000 in Afghnistan looking for actual terrorists. something is very wrong

That's probably why they realigned it... get some of those 70,000 in the field.

The reason we kept them there so long is probably due to the fact that we have all the facilities there to maintain a massive number of troops for operations in former Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe etc...and it was a flexible waypoint from which to deploy people

They won't all be leaving, we'll probably keep our airbases there and military hospitals so that casualties from Iraq or Afghanistan can be flown in for better treatment and care quickly.


I wonder if we'll keep our tank depots? I read that we kept the equipment in place for divisions more men, with the idea that a division could be flown in by airliner...head to the depots, load up and start the tanks and rush out into battle.

I believe we are adding equipment to make up for the lack of men. More aircraft and the like.

Best thing is that they go out of EU. Enough rapes and other crimes done by "some" parts of the US troops in EU. They think that they are above the law here. So, Bush needs his boys, send them!

You know for 50 years American soldiers there have provided Europe safety from the USSR. Maybe instead of attacking the whole lot for a couple scum bags in the group, you ought to be thanking the generations of soldiers who served there instead. You want to know why most Americans really don't give two shits about what Europeans think of us...because after all we've done for you in the last century, you turn on us like rabid dogs when you don't need us to protect you any more. I promise you if the USSR hadn't failed, you wouldn't have heard a peep from Europe about the war in Iraq. Sad.

Bad, bad, bad.

This looks bad. I've studied troop deployments and yes, cold war plans did not meet our needs. But consider the following...

N. Korea is doing what now? Becoming less of a threat? Is S. Korea somehow safer than before? Why are the bulk of US forces moving to Japan? Japanese military bases have often been seen in low regard by the natives, and a few incidents here and there have flared up resentment against the troops. Why station MORE there?

Moving out of S. Korea means either
1) We are expecting/counting on no increased activity from N.Korea.
2) S. Korean bases are simply undefendable and N. Korean aggression would likely result in the immediate loss/disabling of response capability.
3) Politics. S. Korea or Japan have made deals with the US for this. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that may be.

The move from S. Korea could be a result of some of the anti-US protests from S. Korea...but they've backed off tremendously in recent months on such issues. Even their Prime Minister has backpedled on his call for US troops to leave. I see little domestic news from S.Korea to lead me to believe that they actually WANT the pullout in reality. The principle sounds good to them, but leaving your border unguarded sounds like risky business when N. Korea is known for its erratic behaviour.

I hate to say this, but it kinda sounds like punishment for not supporting the US in Iraq...

The European theater pull-out kinda makes sense, how many tanks do we need in Germany anyway? But the oddly enough the US has made no arrangements for new bases within the new "Hotspots" outside of Iraq and Afganistan (as forum members have been quick to point out, Iraq will likely have a significant US military presence...I hope so, because the likely alternative to that would be a massive number of mercinaries...)

What about S. America? I've seen reports that terrorists (among them Al-queda, always helps to mention them), have been using some of the lawless or rebel-controlled areas of S. America for logistics; training camps and attacks based from such areas are possible as well.

If we are placing troops in Japan, we may be expecting trouble in the Philippeans, or Indoneasia, but the travel distances are long, difficult to say how easy "force projection" will be with the Pacific Ocean in the way. Of course, Rummy's wants to decrease our Carrier fleet, so that makes things harder for the US.

All in all, this is shaping up to be a real big mistake. Unless there's a WHOLE LOT of info that the public doesn't have access to, I think we're witnessing a potential serious blunder. Misallocating the US's military resources further will likely take many years to correct, even if no one takes advantage of this.

Think of it this way, already stretched thin in Iraq, all but ignoring Aftganistan, praying that N. Korea will stay good, and keeping China quiet about Taiwan; the US pulls half of its European-based troops back home, and shifts its Asian theater troops off the mainland to bases on a Island that is occasionally very angered by our presence. All but cut off from the Asian mainland, with most of its spare troops sitting idlly on its home soil, just how much power can the US project outward? Last I checked the US troop carrying capacity was limited, and did not include the ability to send troops over an entire Ocean in anything resembling a reasonable period of time.

Hope nobody gets frisky.

I believe we are adding equipment to make up for the lack of men. More aircraft and the like.



You know for 50 years American soldiers there have provided Europe safety from the USSR. Maybe instead of attacking the whole lot for a couple scum bags in the group, you ought to be thanking the generations of soldiers who served there instead. You want to know why most Americans really don't give two shits about what Europeans think of us...because after all we've done for you in the last century, you turn on us like rabid dogs when you don't need us to protect you any more. I promise you if the USSR hadn't failed, you wouldn't have heard a peep from Europe about the war in Iraq. Sad.
You really think the few soldiers you had in Germany defeated the USSR or protected Europe? Dream on little boy. If that had been the intention,you'd have withdrawn when the USSR collapsed. Alas U$ bases throughout the world are merely a geopolitical and geomilitary tool. With military representation in just about all important countries in the world, the U$ are in a perfect position to dictate world policy. Just get the fuck out of Europe and if possible, withdraw your fucking idiot soldiers out of all foreign nations. Keep them in the U$ until asked by the UN to help in peacekeeping missions - which you really arent much of a help with nowadays. Get rid of the "World Police" mentality and stick the fuck to your own issues - of which the U$ has plenty.

I don't necessarily like it, but it does get more of our troops back home and out of sovreign nations that we're not supposed to have permanent bases in. We need to pull out of all other countries and get back to defending ourselves and not messing with the rest of the planet.

You really think the few soldiers you had in Germany defeated the USSR or protected Europe? Dream on little boy. If that had been the intention,you'd have withdrawn when the USSR collapsed. Alas U$ bases throughout the world are merely a geopolitical and geomilitary tool. With military representation in just about all important countries in the world, the U$ are in a perfect position to dictate world policy. Just get the fuck out of Europe and if possible, withdraw your fucking idiot soldiers out of all foreign nations. Keep them in the U$ until asked by the UN to help in peacekeeping missions - which you really arent much of a help with nowadays. Get rid of the "World Police" mentality and stick the fuck to your own issues - of which the U$ has plenty.

Thanks for the attack....we really appreciate it. :rolleyes: I would like our troops removed from all the rest of the countries myself, but damn, nice job expressing.

How about we take our 22% of the funding out of the overly-bureaucratic UN and let it finally die like the failed League of Nations? Personally, I'd like my taxes back from the UN. The US needs to fix the US before it goes monkeying with any other nations (that includes saving them--let them be responsible for themselves--any interaction we have seems to make everything worse when it's all said and done).

I like the Switzerland plan....Trade and that's it. :cool:

Thanks for the attack....we really appreciate it. :rolleyes: I would like our troops removed from all the rest of the countries myself, but damn, nice job expressing.

How about we take our 22% of the funding out of the overly-bureaucratic UN and let it finally die like the failed League of Nations? Personally, I'd like my taxes back from the UN. The US needs to fix the US before it goes monkeying with any other nations (that includes saving them--let them be responsible for themselves--any interaction we have seems to make everything worse when it's all said and done).

I like the Switzerland plan....Trade and that's it. :cool:
As if the U$ ever paid their dues. If the U$ paid anything to the UN, then it was always below what they actually owed. If the U$ openly ignore the UN and unilaterally wage wars in the world, then I am not at all surprised that it loses credibility. I'd support if the U$ were to withdraw all their stupid Gee-Eyes from all over the world. I am sure most nations that happen to have Gee-Eyes stationed in them, didnt ask for them.

As if the U$ ever paid their dues. If the U$ paid anything to the UN, then it was always below what they actually owed. If the U$ openly ignore the UN and unilaterally wage wars in the world, then I am not at all surprised that it loses credibility. I'd support if the U$ were to withdraw all their stupid Gee-Eyes from all over the world. I am sure most nations that happen to have Gee-Eyes stationed in them, didnt ask for them.

1. Yes, the United States did prevent Germany from becoming part of the Soviet Union. If we would have pulled out after WWII, the U.S.S.R. would have rolled over Europe.

2. You're right. We should withdraw all U.S. troops from all over the world. That way, radical insurgents in Ira would take over, the Taliban would retake control and murder women just because they saw her skin, and North Korea could invade South Korea. And as an ally of the United States, Germany is willing to have U.S. bases on German soil so that the most powerful military in the world could have easier access to hot spots around the world.

3. Who the hell are you kidding!? Without the U.S., the U.N. dies.

As if the U$ ever paid their dues. If the U$ paid anything to the UN, then it was always below what they actually owed. If the U$ openly ignore the UN and unilaterally wage wars in the world, then I am not at all surprised that it loses credibility. I'd support if the U$ were to withdraw all their stupid Gee-Eyes from all over the world. I am sure most nations that happen to have Gee-Eyes stationed in them, didnt ask for them.

OWED? We OWED the UN? Interesting. We owe an organization that tries to, but has no legal authority to rule the planet? Not likely. We owe them nothing. The US created treaties to protect itself (IE NATO) all on its own. We have yet to actually need the UN for anything.

Once your nation is actually kicking out as much as the US is to this organization that is "owed", then you can whine about who's not keeping up. I can safely say, Germany isn't keeping pace with the amount that the US has "donated".

You want to talk about debt? How about all that nifty debt from a few European nations that owed the US from the first half of the last century? It most certainly was not all paid back.

(coughcoughwarreparationsfromDeutschlandcoughcoughcough)

Yeah, World War II will keep coming up. Our bases were originally there for a reason. One that I don't agree with, but one a great many of the governments of Europe agreed to at the time. We have SOME responsibility, surely, but definitely not all. You want to blame someone? Blame your ancestors.

Like I said before, I want the US out of all non-domestic issues other than trade. And I surely want our current president out of power. Let sovreign nations go about their business. What they do is none of our concern--and neither is what we do any of theirs.

I wonder if they're pulling them out cause they're looking to deploy them elsewhere shortly - i.e. either Iraq or declaring war on another state. Iran maybe? Remember it's part of the 'axis of evil' and it was on Fox site the other day a Bush govt official saying by September they'll know more about what Iran's been up to.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126955,00.html
President Bush said Monday the United States was exploring whether Iran had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We're digging into the facts to see if there was one," Bush said in an Oval Office photo opportunity. "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved ... I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it's a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings."
Let's face it. If there isn't a link, they'll make one up to give themselves a reason to invade (NE14WMDs?). I like the bit about the ppl not allowed to exercise their rights. Yes George, I hear they lock ppl up for years on end without charging them, deny them access to lawyers, endure beatings and humiliations, psychological torture...They need to be stopped! ;)
So maybe that's where those 70 thou troops who have been having a great time in Europe are going to get sent. Poor sods.

OWED? We OWED the UN? Interesting. We owe an organization that tries to, but has no legal authority to rule the planet? Not likely. We owe them nothing. The US created treaties to protect itself (IE NATO) all on its own. We have yet to actually need the UN for anything.

Once your nation is actually kicking out as much as the US is to this organization that is "owed", then you can whine about who's not keeping up. I can safely say, Germany isn't keeping pace with the amount that the US has "donated".

You want to talk about debt? How about all that nifty debt from a few European nations that owed the US from the first half of the last century? It most certainly was not all paid back.

(coughcoughwarreparationsfromDeutschlandcoughcoughcough)

Yeah, World War II will keep coming up. Our bases were originally there for a reason. One that I don't agree with, but one a great many of the governments of Europe agreed to at the time. We have SOME responsibility, surely, but definitely not all. You want to blame someone? Blame your ancestors.

Like I said before, I want the US out of all non-domestic issues other than trade. And I surely want our current president out of power. Let sovreign nations go about their business. What they do is none of our concern--and neither is what we do any of theirs.
War reparations from Germany? What exactly might Germany have destroyed in the U$? I dont think Germany carpet bombed any U$ cities, although I'd have cheered if that had been the case and if I had been alive back then. Germany is not the U$. Compared to the U$ economy, ours is tiny. Germany at least pays what it can, the U$ doesnt - although you could. You are just too greedy and too pompous to pay for an organization that you helped found and that you used multiple times to pressure other governments into U$ submission. NATO is a joke - its outdated and with the fall of the USSR unneeded. I predict that this alliance will be disbanded within the next 10 years, at the latest when a EU army is on the agenda and NATO would be a conflict of interest for us Europeans.

War reparations from Germany? What exactly might Germany have destroyed in the U$? I dont think Germany carpet bombed any U$ cities, although I'd have cheered if that had been the case and if I had been alive back then. Germany is not the U$. Compared to the U$ economy, ours is tiny. Germany at least pays what it can, the U$ doesnt - although you could. You are just too greedy and too pompous to pay for an organization that you helped found and that you used multiple times to pressure other governments into U$ submission. NATO is a joke - its outdated and with the fall of the USSR unneeded. I predict that this alliance will be disbanded within the next 10 years, at the latest when a EU army is on the agenda and NATO would be a conflict of interest for us Europeans. I agree. NATO is a relic of the Cold War and it should have been replaced years ago by an EU military treaty.

War reparations from Germany? What exactly might Germany have destroyed in the U$? I dont think Germany carpet bombed any U$ cities, although I'd have cheered if that had been the case and if I had been alive back then. Germany is not the U$. Compared to the U$ economy, ours is tiny. Germany at least pays what it can, the U$ doesnt - although you could. You are just too greedy and too pompous to pay for an organization that you helped found and that you used multiple times to pressure other governments into U$ submission. NATO is a joke - its outdated and with the fall of the USSR unneeded. I predict that this alliance will be disbanded within the next 10 years, at the latest when a EU army is on the agenda and NATO would be a conflict of interest for us Europeans.

What did Germany destroy in the US? Families. We wouldn't have been in Europe if it weren't for the Axis nations.

Would have cheered the bombing of us, huh? Did you cheer in 2001? You would have wanted Hitler in then, eh? Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I guess.

The US is not a charity organization. It is a country. If I don't want to give you the money I have worked for, try and force me. Call me greedy if you want. Just because European governments force their citizens to pay more taxes than we do, doesn't mean you get to try to force the rest of us to do the same.

I call myself a hard worker that doesn't expect handouts. I have too much respect for myself to have to rely on someone else. I worked for my career, my knowledge, my house, my car. I wasn't given anything, once I was out of the house at age 18.

I expect everyone else to work, too. I call the majority of those looking for handouts lazy--perpetual "victims" of their own design. There are legitimate examples of those that actually need help, however. And I donate WHAT I CAN to those charities. But it's my decision, my choice. Not yours. Certainly not your government's choice.

I was only unsing NATO as an example of how we didn't need to have the UN protecting us. I don't think we need to be involved with NATO, either. We did just fine setting up our own protections--without the UN. That was the point.

You really think the few soldiers you had in Germany defeated the USSR or protected Europe? Dream on little boy. If that had been the intention,you'd have withdrawn when the USSR collapsed. Alas U$ bases throughout the world are merely a geopolitical and geomilitary tool. With military representation in just about all important countries in the world, the U$ are in a perfect position to dictate world policy. Just get the fuck out of Europe and if possible, withdraw your fucking idiot soldiers out of all foreign nations. Keep them in the U$ until asked by the UN to help in peacekeeping missions - which you really arent much of a help with nowadays. Get rid of the "World Police" mentality and stick the fuck to your own issues - of which the U$ has plenty.

Haha, how is that self-denial working out for you? That's ok though, you rank right there in the ungrateful european category that we basically just ignore. I guess that is just German bitterness for losing every major war they were involved in in the last century....but that's right, you kept the Soviet Union at bay, right. How long were they in East Germany again?

Haha, a German upset at America for imperialism, isn't that a joke.

Well said.

Haha, how is that self-denial working out for you? That's ok though, you rank right there in the ungrateful european category that we basically just ignore. I guess that is just German bitterness for losing every major war they were involved in in the last century....but that's right, you kept the Soviet Union at bay, right. How long were they in East Germany again?

Haha, a German upset at America for imperialism, isn't that a joke.
The USSR were in East Germany until the inner process in the USSR was at the point where civil uprisings and change was forced upon it due to the failure of its government and economic model. Dont think that the U$ will remain the only superpower. You may not notice it yet, but the U$ are already on their way out as capitalism is on its way to fail and the world as we know it is about to collapse. The exploits of the last decades, the glaring injustice and unfair wealth distribution in the world, causes many many many humans, who hate the system and who hate the rich (upper 10% perhaps). You'll see how it will end, in the next 10-20 years when capitalism has exploited itself to the point that it dies from a cardiac infarct.

What did Germany destroy in the US? Families. *cough cough* Firebombing of Dresden *cough cough*

The USSR were in East Germany until the inner process in the USSR was at the point where civil uprisings and change was forced upon it due to the failure of its government and economic model. Dont think that the U$ will remain the only superpower. You may not notice it yet, but the U$ are already on their way out as capitalism is on its way to fail and the world as we know it is about to collapse. The exploits of the last decades, the glaring injustice and unfair wealth distribution in the world, causes many many many humans, who hate the system and who hate the rich (upper 10% perhaps). You'll see how it will end, in the next 10-20 years when capitalism has exploited itself to the point that it dies from a cardiac infarct.

Yeah, and why did they Soviet Union stop at East Germany....oh wait, it was those pesky US troops in the West, that's right. As for the rest, you can dream on about the collapse of the capitolist world...ever notice the places where the world is growing the most right now are places where capitalism are merging (i.e. India and China).

in the ungrateful european category that we basically just ignore. The US ignores every nation that doesn't have oil. Personally, I think it's really quite hilarious how a bunch of Saudi autocrats have the US economy by the balls.

ever notice the places where the world is growing the most right now are places where capitalism are merging (i.e. India and China). I can't see capitalism ending anytime soon. Capitalism is greed and greed is human nature.

The rise of China is a very interesting subject. China is emerging as a superpower which will no doubt eventually challenge the US. The current Bush administration can't even create a coherent policy to deal with North Korea, so 'containment' of China is out of the question.

The US ignores every nation that doesn't have oil. Personally, I think it's really quite hilarious how a bunch of Saudi autocrats have the US economy by the balls.

You know, the US only gets about 15% of its oil from the middle east. If you want to know who that side of the world has by the balls, it is Europe.

I believe we are adding equipment to make up for the lack of men. More aircraft and the like.



You know for 50 years American soldiers there have provided Europe safety from the USSR. Maybe instead of attacking the whole lot for a couple scum bags in the group, you ought to be thanking the generations of soldiers who served there instead. You want to know why most Americans really don't give two shits about what Europeans think of us...because after all we've done for you in the last century, you turn on us like rabid dogs when you don't need us to protect you any more. I promise you if the USSR hadn't failed, you wouldn't have heard a peep from Europe about the war in Iraq. Sad.

I am afraid shows a chronic lack of understanding of European politics.
Europe did stand against things done by USA during the Cold War, Vietnam comes to mind.

Europeans are not ungrateful for the assistance of the USA during the cold war, however you can not expect us to ignore everything you do that goes against our values and public opinion because of this gratidude.

You know, the US only gets about 15% of its oil from the middle east. If you want to know who that side of the world has by the balls, it is Europe.

you're absolutely correct that Europe relies more on Middle Eastern oil. But, 15% is a significant and large proportion, if that 15% disappeared tomorrow you would be in the sh|thouse. The fact is that the Middle East has both Europe and North America "by the balls" when it comes to oil.

*cough cough* Firebombing of Dresden *cough cough*

Um, yup. Maybe Germany shouldn't have taken the Sudettenland, Poland, France, etc....

And before anyone brings up Iraq--Hussein had been firing missles at our planes for the last 10 years. The UN did nothing to stop it. However, I still disagree with my government about going in there.

I thought most of Europe's oil was supplied by Russia.

You know, the US only gets about 15% of its oil from the middle east. If you want to know who that side of the world has by the balls, it is Europe.

I recall hearing that Saudi Arabia has huge sums of money invested somehow in the US to the extent if they were to withdraw everything at once, they could really screw the US economy. Anyone else hear something like this or have more specifics?

And before anyone brings up Iraq--Hussein had been firing missles at our planes for the last 10 years. The UN did nothing to stop it. However, I still disagree with my government about going in there. The no-fly zones over Iraq were not supported by the UN. It was purely a US-UK operation. Therefore, Iraq had every right to fire at aircraft violating its air space.

The no-fly zones over Iraq were not supported by the UN. It was purely a US-UK operation. Therefore, Iraq had every right to fire at aircraft violating its air space.

But of course the US/UK coalition has the right to dictate other countries where they may fly and where they may not fly.

Its called oppression, occupation, dictatorship. The US/UK are just modern bandits.

Um, yup. Maybe Germany shouldn't have taken the Sudettenland, Poland, France, etc....

And before anyone brings up Iraq--Hussein had been firing missles at our planes for the last 10 years. The UN did nothing to stop it. However, I still disagree with my government about going in there.

FYI - The No Fly Zone was a breach of international law. The UN never approved it.

Europeans are not ungrateful for the assistance of the USA during the cold war, however you can not expect us to ignore everything you do that goes against our values and public opinion because of this gratidude.

Thank you for that. And thank you for helping us during the cold war as well. Without your permission, our troops couldn't have been there in the first place.

And no, I most certainly don't expect you to be okay with everything the US does out of gratitude.

You have your right to have free will, think, and do things for yourselves (and no, I don't think this is a permission issue--the US has no say on any of that, and we know it, despite what many opine--this is just a statement of fact).

The World's right is to disagree with the US. Nothing more. Just like we can disagree with anyone else. No one can tell us what to do, or how to act (though I think a few more at home need to be doing that!).

I've already voiced my dissention with my government for being in Iraq at all. We need to get out as soon as possible.

Europeans are not ungrateful for the assistance of the USA during the cold war, however you can not expect us to ignore everything you do that goes against our values and public opinion because of this gratidude.

And we wouldn't expect you to either. But there is a huge difference between disagreeing with us constructively and the blatant anti-Americanism of the leaders of France and Germany leading up to the Iraqi war. As somebody who had two grandparents at the invasion of Normandy, I find it very ungrateful of the sacrifices we've made in Europe over the last century.

Bad, bad, bad.

This looks bad. I've studied troop deployments and yes, cold war plans did not meet our needs. But consider the following...

N. Korea is doing what now? Becoming less of a threat? Is S. Korea somehow safer than before? Why are the bulk of US forces moving to Japan? Japanese military bases have often been seen in low regard by the natives, and a few incidents here and there have flared up resentment against the troops. Why station MORE there?

Moving out of S. Korea means either
1) We are expecting/counting on no increased activity from N.Korea.
2) S. Korean bases are simply undefendable and N. Korean aggression would likely result in the immediate loss/disabling of response capability.
3) Politics. S. Korea or Japan have made deals with the US for this. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that may be.

The move from S. Korea could be a result of some of the anti-US protests from S. Korea...but they've backed off tremendously in recent months on such issues. Even their Prime Minister has backpedled on his call for US troops to leave. I see little domestic news from S.Korea to lead me to believe that they actually WANT the pullout in reality. The principle sounds good to them, but leaving your border unguarded sounds like risky business when N. Korea is known for its erratic behaviour.

I hate to say this, but it kinda sounds like punishment for not supporting the US in Iraq...

The European theater pull-out kinda makes sense, how many tanks do we need in Germany anyway? But the oddly enough the US has made no arrangements for new bases within the new "Hotspots" outside of Iraq and Afganistan (as forum members have been quick to point out, Iraq will likely have a significant US military presence...I hope so, because the likely alternative to that would be a massive number of mercinaries...)

What about S. America? I've seen reports that terrorists (among them Al-queda, always helps to mention them), have been using some of the lawless or rebel-controlled areas of S. America for logistics; training camps and attacks based from such areas are possible as well.

If we are placing troops in Japan, we may be expecting trouble in the Philippeans, or Indoneasia, but the travel distances are long, difficult to say how easy "force projection" will be with the Pacific Ocean in the way. Of course, Rummy's wants to decrease our Carrier fleet, so that makes things harder for the US.

All in all, this is shaping up to be a real big mistake. Unless there's a WHOLE LOT of info that the public doesn't have access to, I think we're witnessing a potential serious blunder. Misallocating the US's military resources further will likely take many years to correct, even if no one takes advantage of this.

Think of it this way, already stretched thin in Iraq, all but ignoring Aftganistan, praying that N. Korea will stay good, and keeping China quiet about Taiwan; the US pulls half of its European-based troops back home, and shifts its Asian theater troops off the mainland to bases on a Island that is occasionally very angered by our presence. All but cut off from the Asian mainland, with most of its spare troops sitting idlly on its home soil, just how much power can the US project outward? Last I checked the US troop carrying capacity was limited, and did not include the ability to send troops over an entire Ocean in anything resembling a reasonable period of time.

Hope nobody gets frisky.
First of all, I've found out that about a third of US forces are moving off the Korean peninsula altogether. Secondly, part of the realignment is not to get huge, bulky armies in the field. We need to keep them at home. What'd suit our current defense needs are more outposts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, even the Carribean. Gone are the days when US bases resembled small towns, and here are the days that they look like tent cities.
As for Japan, they have a love-hate relationship with the US, with the military being hated. However, the government doesn't mind, as US forces there act as their defense, alieviating the Japanese economy of that burden. It actually sounds like a strategic move to me. Japan is safe and familiar. If trouble breaks out anywhere in Asia, then Japan is our base, rather then calling for an army in distant Germany, or the US. Currently, however, the Asian situation doesn't require the establishment of firebases by the military, but if they do, they're close at hand in Japan. Besides, the island is crucial for attacking North Korea while maintaining minimal troop casualties.
BTW, I have to ask you if you know about the status of the troops in Iceland? I'm interested to hear about that.

You really think the few soldiers you had in Germany defeated the USSR or protected Europe? Dream on little boy. If that had been the intention,you'd have withdrawn when the USSR collapsed. Alas U$ bases throughout the world are merely a geopolitical and geomilitary tool. With military representation in just about all important countries in the world, the U$ are in a perfect position to dictate world policy. Just get the fuck out of Europe and if possible, withdraw your fucking idiot soldiers out of all foreign nations. Keep them in the U$ until asked by the UN to help in peacekeeping missions - which you really arent much of a help with nowadays. Get rid of the "World Police" mentality and stick the fuck to your own issues - of which the U$ has plenty.
So, I'm guessing this means you aren't fond of US troops restationing in nearby Poland. Or in Romania or Hungary.

I don't think they are actually being moved out of the country. I think that they are simply moving south, away from the DMZ. They'll still be part of any defense for South Korea, but they won't be the sacrificial lambs on the DMZ. I don't agree with it myself, but hey, it's what the Pentagon feels it needs to do.

Correct.

It was a tactical move because the NK have a ton of artillery. Where they placed took out first strike.

They are not leaving until the the Korean War is over.

Correct.

It was a tactical move because the NK have a ton of artillery. Where they placed took out first strike.

They are not leaving until the the Korean War is over.
Will it ever end?

You really think the few soldiers you had in Germany defeated the USSR or protected Europe? Dream on little boy. If that had been the intention,you'd have withdrawn when the USSR collapsed. Alas U$ bases throughout the world are merely a geopolitical and geomilitary tool. With military representation in just about all important countries in the world, the U$ are in a perfect position to dictate world policy. Just get the fuck out of Europe and if possible, withdraw your fucking idiot soldiers out of all foreign nations. Keep them in the U$ until asked by the UN to help in peacekeeping missions - which you really arent much of a help with nowadays. Get rid of the "World Police" mentality and stick the fuck to your own issues - of which the U$ has plenty.

-Buzzer Sound-

Thnk you for playing but as always you have it wrong.

The presense of the Soldiers did keep the USSR in check. Not because they could withstand an all out assult but because attacking them would be a declaration of war against the US. As such the missles fly.

They weren't pulled probably because your goverment still like getting the money the US paid for basing there.

-ignores the rest the the dribble-

The US ignores every nation that doesn't have oil. Personally, I think it's really quite hilarious how a bunch of Saudi autocrats have the US economy by the balls.

Oh and I bet Germany and France were against Iraq for moral reasons versus the contracts they had?

Oh and I bet Germany and France were against Iraq for moral reasons versus the contracts they had?
Don't forget, Afghanistan didn't have oil, either.

Will it ever end?

I really don't know.

A couple of my great-uncles foght there.
My father was stationed there.
I was almost born there.

It just seems to continue.

It might end with whomever succeeds Kim Jong-il but not likely.

No "real" industry. A rather large army. Makes it really hard to change. You can't simply dump that many soldiers when they have nothing to go home to.....

Don't forget, Afghanistan didn't have oil, either.

Ahh but do they really?

The main part was to go after Bin Laden.

However, there is the possibily of the pipeline. But they will never happen until the country stablises and the war lords are gone.

That will be awhile.

Ahh but do they really?

The main part was to go after Bin Laden.

However, there is the possibily of the pipeline. But they will never happen until the country stablises and the war lords are gone.

That will be awhile.
That'll be a very long time, probably long after Bush is gone. Even after the country is stable enough, it takes a few years to build a pipeline. But I'm sure that once Afghanistan stabilizes, another country in Central Asia will fall back into anarchy (something Letila should love). A pipeline going south to the Arabian sea will never see completion in my lifetime.

That'll be a very long time, probably long after Bush is gone. Even after the country is stable enough, it takes a few years to build a pipeline. But I'm sure that once Afghanistan stabilizes, another country in Central Asia will fall back into anarchy (something Letila should love). A pipeline going south to the Arabian sea will never see completion in my lifetime.

It's kind of a mixed review there. A work mate has family there and he reports that the news agencies are painting a "good" picture. It's pretty bad in many places and yet for the first time there are paved highways going to certain cities. He said travel time went from a day and half to 5 hours.

Time will tell.....

It's kind of a mixed review there. A work mate has family there and he reports that the news agencies are painting a "good" picture. It's pretty bad in many places and yet for the first time there are paved highways going to certain cities. He said travel time went from a day and half to 5 hours.

Time will tell.....
Hey, it's a start.

What I'm sort of depressed by with this is that it's becoming a political issue. John Kerry's campaign has attacked it as being politically motivated, by promising to bring troops home. I know that wasn't the case. My mom's friend is a colonel, and he just came home from Romania to help establish bases there. This was about a year ago. How could this have been a political issue?
Then again, most people don't know high ranking officers in the military, do they? I have a feeling this will work in Kerry's favor.

bump

I smell a rat. Can anyone say Iran?

I smell a rat. Can anyone say Iran?
You mean that this is what the deployment's for?

War reparations from Germany? What exactly might Germany have destroyed in the U$? I dont think Germany carpet bombed any U$ cities, although I'd have cheered if that had been the case and if I had been alive back then. Germany is not the U$. Compared to the U$ economy, ours is tiny. Germany at least pays what it can, the U$ doesnt - although you could. You are just too greedy and too pompous to pay for an organization that you helped found and that you used multiple times to pressure other governments into U$ submission. NATO is a joke - its outdated and with the fall of the USSR unneeded. I predict that this alliance will be disbanded within the next 10 years, at the latest when a EU army is on the agenda and NATO would be a conflict of interest for us Europeans.


I actually agree with you on a lot of things but Germany did bomb the hell out of many countries of which the Americans ended up paying to rebuild. Also, the U.S. after World War gave millions of dollars to rebuild Germany even though it was the agressing nation. If you would learn a little more about the U.S. economy you would know that they are in a slump right now and have huge deficits. The U.N. has become a joke but don't make a mistake. The U.S. did help a lot of people out. Germany has plenty of money now, after the U.S. attacked Iraq (which I don't agree with), Germany which opposed the war was trying to get rebuilding contracts so don't think that your country is any less guilty then the Americans. How sick is that, I don't want to send troops or expense for what is going on but if I can make money on it o.k. If your country really didn't like our position it would be rebuilding Iraq for free. Kind of like the U.S. did to your country after it was the AGGRESOR. All nations are guilty.

I just thought this was interesting.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
Appearantly, the army is planning on a lighter force worldwide. I think it's very feasible, as the level of technology improves. In fact, out of the ten active divisions, only one has yet to be fully digitalized.

Now, just out of curiosity, if anyone choose the option about local economies, why did you vote that way? And I haven't heard from anyone that voted "other". How about you, Von Witzleben? You always manage to stir the pot.

bump

To all Germans disgruntled with America, you thought you'd see the last of the US, right? Wrong. There's a replacement force coming.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-08/17/content_1799112.htm

Best thing is that they go out of EU. Enough rapes and other crimes done by "some" parts of the US troops in EU. They think that they are above the law here. So, Bush needs his boys, send them!
I don't think this will affect the 6th fleet stationed in Gaeta, Italy. Besides, new posts will go up in Eastern Europe.

Debate it for me, wontcha?

bumpity bumpity bump bump bump

Well apparantly, US troop movement into Eastern Europe will piss Russia off.

bump

They say that every military is prepared for the last war. This is said for good reason; attempts to anticipate all known variables is futile. That being said; I pose the following questions.

1) The majority of our "huge, bulky" armies are going to be placed on US soil. This means a crisis in either Europe OR Asia will take how many MONTHS to respond to with sufficient force to deter a major invasion?

Example: Taiwan declares independence. China has in recent months publicly stated that it will invade Taiwan regardless of its hosting of the Olymic games or concern for international opinion if Taiwan does in fact do this. How many rapid response troops will it take to stop/prevent/deter this invasion? How many divisions of troops will be needed to prevent Taiwan from being taken over?

That's just one example of course, but to insist blindly that no major military actions will take place in the world between now and 2010 is simply absurd. By maintaining larger, land-based forces, including heavy equipment and ample logistics on both continents will insure that any "Rapid Response" will recieve adequte support if it hits the fan. Otherwise we must simply pray that the world refrains from any major shakeups or quick shifts in power; because moving a sizable force accross an ocean will take time. Time that could leave us arriving too late to help.

Lets look at Somolia, where special forces troops were only supported by air support from a carrier fleet and a small base. In this case a "rapid response" was discovered, bogged down, and hit hard by enemy troops. Without sufficient armor (body or mechanized) or fire support, our troops had a hard time of it. Rapid response is not the ONLY type of military activity; in fact ignoring our heavy troops and relying on lighter, more mobile forces may lead our troops to be killed more often, due to inadequte numbers in area, fire support, or god forbid, logistics.

Its the very principle here that I'm arguing against. If you look at military history, lighter, more flexible responses are good in some cases, but placed against hardened, armored, or dug in troops a commander's options are too limited. We are placing fancy words and ideals against COMMON SENSE military theory.

Sorry, I have no info on Iceland deployments, I checked a few sites, but none even mentioned a deployment there. If there in fact is one, its likely too small to be of much notice. I could dig deeper if you want, but why so interested?

ive voted others.
i say dont let the door hit you on the way out. and dont forget the cia and the rest of the occupation forces. and while your at it, take every mcdonalds store, burger king and the other crap with you. :mad:

An elegant solution to the North Korea problem:

Persuade the Chinese to invade North Korea. No, despite the common misconception that they're allies, Beijing's view of North Korea as nothing more than a bandit state thats constantly pesting China for more aid.

If the Chinese "hit first, hit hard, hit fast" its going to be a walk-over. Political/Strategic surprise is very feasible too. The NK would never expect the Chinese to go hostile with them.

Of course, given how the Chinese can't handle the logistics of a long-term occupation, they'd probably set up a moderate puppet government. Or hand it over to the Seoul government, in exchange for a long term Trade and defense pact of some description. It'd also weaken the position of the Japanese in the region, something that both China and Korea would like.

JiangGuo

The majority of our "huge, bulky" armies are going to be placed on US soil. This means a crisis in either Europe OR Asia will take how many MONTHS to respond to with sufficient force to deter a major invasion?

Moving troops does not mean moving equipment. The US has stock piles world wide. That was the major lesson learned from Gulf War I. You keep heavier equipment like tanks at strategic positions around the world, and then you need only keep maintenance people on hand and fly in personel to use the equipment.

Well apparantly, US troop movement into Eastern Europe will piss Russia off. Of course it will.

The deployments in Romania and the Baltics are aimed at Russia and Belarus.

An elegant solution to the North Korea problem:

Persuade the Chinese to invade North Korea. No, despite the common misconception that they're allies, Beijing's view of North Korea as nothing more than a bandit state thats constantly pesting China for more aid.

If the Chinese "hit first, hit hard, hit fast" its going to be a walk-over. Political/Strategic surprise is very feasible too. The NK would never expect the Chinese to go hostile with them.

Of course, given how the Chinese can't handle the logistics of a long-term occupation, they'd probably set up a moderate puppet government. Or hand it over to the Seoul government, in exchange for a long term Trade and defense pact of some description. It'd also weaken the position of the Japanese in the region, something that both China and Korea would like.

JiangGuo China is using North Korea as a proxy.

Currently, China is pissed at US support for Taiwan. So in retaliation, China has decided it will do next to nothing to help the US with North Korea.

They say that every military is prepared for the last war. This is said for good reason; attempts to anticipate all known variables is futile. That being said; I pose the following questions.

1) The majority of our "huge, bulky" armies are going to be placed on US soil. This means a crisis in either Europe OR Asia will take how many MONTHS to respond to with sufficient force to deter a major invasion?

Example: Taiwan declares independence. China has in recent months publicly stated that it will invade Taiwan regardless of its hosting of the Olymic games or concern for international opinion if Taiwan does in fact do this. How many rapid response troops will it take to stop/prevent/deter this invasion? How many divisions of troops will be needed to prevent Taiwan from being taken over?
Well, I've read up a little more on this. Like you said, we're placing more forces in Japan and Guam, and the armies there are very heavy. We need to have a sufficient detterence in East Asia, but I can't see one anywhere else. For example, in the next ten years, will Algeria become powerful enough to invade Western Europe? It's risky to move heavy forces out of Europe, I admit, but what's the crisis? Besides, the European powers can defend themselves. If anything, a forward deployed army needs to be in East Asia, just in case China gets outta hand.

That's just one example of course, but to insist blindly that no major military actions will take place in the world between now and 2010 is simply absurd. By maintaining larger, land-based forces, including heavy equipment and ample logistics on both continents will insure that any "Rapid Response" will recieve adequte support if it hits the fan. Otherwise we must simply pray that the world refrains from any major shakeups or quick shifts in power; because moving a sizable force accross an ocean will take time. Time that could leave us arriving too late to help.

Lets look at Somolia, where special forces troops were only supported by air support from a carrier fleet and a small base. In this case a "rapid response" was discovered, bogged down, and hit hard by enemy troops. Without sufficient armor (body or mechanized) or fire support, our troops had a hard time of it. Rapid response is not the ONLY type of military activity; in fact ignoring our heavy troops and relying on lighter, more mobile forces may lead our troops to be killed more often, due to inadequte numbers in area, fire support, or god forbid, logistics.

Its the very principle here that I'm arguing against. If you look at military history, lighter, more flexible responses are good in some cases, but placed against hardened, armored, or dug in troops a commander's options are too limited. We are placing fancy words and ideals against COMMON SENSE military theory.
I'd have to argue against that. I think that technology is working in favor of a lighter force, and giving them additional flexibility. For example, reconnaissance drones can fit in the palm of a soldier's hand. Perhaps logistics would be a problem, but I see air and naval fire support as a big help. Besides, heavy forces are not pratical to fight such a light force fighting a guerilla war. Look at Haiti, the Boer Wars, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Each had a heavy force that didn't suceed.
Also, don't forget that rapid reaction forces have a better chance of penetrating undetected.
Sorry, I have no info on Iceland deployments, I checked a few sites, but none even mentioned a deployment there. If there in fact is one, its likely too small to be of much notice. I could dig deeper if you want, but why so interested?
I have a friend stationed there, who was a paratrooper. I feel it is strategic, as it is the ideal base to train paratroopers, and perhaps as a bombing range. It's a big island, but no one lives there.

Of course it will.

The deployments in Romania and the Baltics are aimed at Russia and Belarus.
However, they can also aid with logistics in the Middle East.

I'd have to argue against that. I think that technology is working in favor of a lighter force, and giving them additional flexibility. For example, reconnaissance drones can fit in the palm of a soldier's hand. Perhaps logistics would be a problem, but I see air and naval fire support as a big help. Besides, heavy forces are not pratical to fight such a light force fighting a guerilla war. Look at Haiti, the Boer Wars, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Each had a heavy force that didn't suceed.
Also, don't forget that rapid reaction forces have a better chance of penetrating undetected.

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here, but I'll try again.

Recon drones are nice, but how much good are they against a company of tanks? A Guided missile can destroy a tank from a thousand miles away, but what good is it against 12 tanks? Aircraft support is essential to an infantryman, but how long can they loiter about in combat before fuel concerns force them to leave?

My point is that the additional power that technology grants our troops is limited, pin-point accuracy is wonderful, but without sufficient firepower in theater, you can only pick off a few at a time. What I'm saying is that the numbers look fine for low-intensity conflicts where we can maintain the element of surprise. However, those numbers change when you look at a large deployment of enemies who know who and what they are facing; troops carry only so much ammo, planes carry only so many bombs, missiles only kill so many at a time.

If at any point our troops lose their speed or stealth, if they are ever forced to DEFEND an objective rather than attack it, they might crumble against heavy forces. Our military history is replete with such examples; even victories in such instances are far more costly than they should be. Think of Vietnam, where we had massive technological advantages, our light recon patrols wreaked havoc behind enemy lines, but they were small and could be savaged if they ran into trouble...and many did. Our victories in that war came at heavy cost, and light elements proved capable, but vunerable.

Heavy forces CAN be used to attack light forces, but you need to use the right tactics, just as light forces can be used to attack heavy ones. Allow me to provide some examples.

Light forces are highly mobile; trap them against a coastline, catch them at rest or in transit, use local informants to flush them out. Corner them and crush them with superior weight of fire and numbers. Take away mobility and turn them into a small static unit by forcing them to defend something.

Heavy forces are strong, but difficult to move; attack them this way and that, at night or during the day, harry them and force them to split up, then pick apart the elements one at a time. Force the large to become the small, the strong to become weak.

Simple, no? Tactics make the size of the force useful no matter what size it is. However, reliance on one induvidual method of war will lead to ruin, because it will take just one enemy who can figure out your weaknesses within your strength, and its over. Better a flexible response, with heavy forces aiding the lighter units as needed, lighter units providing mobile response for the heavy units.

Thus what I am arguing here is that we are ignoring or removing our heavy elements from our foreward staging areas and moving them to the rear. This is not a disaster in itself, but it pins us to one course of action, one set response, while we wait for heavy forces to move up. This is too risky, too vunerable, and COULD, not definately, but certainly could lead to heavy casualties in our light forces, and I don't like risking lives for technological pride.

Oh, I'm working on the Iceland thing, I'll let you know if I find anything.

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here, but I'll try again.

Recon drones are nice, but how much good are they against a company of tanks? A Guided missile can destroy a tank from a thousand miles away, but what good is it against 12 tanks? Aircraft support is essential to an infantryman, but how long can they loiter about in combat before fuel concerns force them to leave?

My point is that the additional power that technology grants our troops is limited, pin-point accuracy is wonderful, but without sufficient firepower in theater, you can only pick off a few at a time. What I'm saying is that the numbers look fine for low-intensity conflicts where we can maintain the element of surprise. However, those numbers change when you look at a large deployment of enemies who know who and what they are facing; troops carry only so much ammo, planes carry only so many bombs, missiles only kill so many at a time.

If at any point our troops lose their speed or stealth, if they are ever forced to DEFEND an objective rather than attack it, they might crumble against heavy forces. Our military history is replete with such examples; even victories in such instances are far more costly than they should be. Think of Vietnam, where we had massive technological advantages, our light recon patrols wreaked havoc behind enemy lines, but they were small and could be savaged if they ran into trouble...and many did. Our victories in that war came at heavy cost, and light elements proved capable, but vunerable.

Heavy forces CAN be used to attack light forces, but you need to use the right tactics, just as light forces can be used to attack heavy ones. Allow me to provide some examples.

Light forces are highly mobile; trap them against a coastline, catch them at rest or in transit, use local informants to flush them out. Corner them and crush them with superior weight of fire and numbers. Take away mobility and turn them into a small static unit by forcing them to defend something.

Heavy forces are strong, but difficult to move; attack them this way and that, at night or during the day, harry them and force them to split up, then pick apart the elements one at a time. Force the large to become the small, the strong to become weak.

Simple, no? Tactics make the size of the force useful no matter what size it is. However, reliance on one induvidual method of war will lead to ruin, because it will take just one enemy who can figure out your weaknesses within your strength, and its over. Better a flexible response, with heavy forces aiding the lighter units as needed, lighter units providing mobile response for the heavy units.

Thus what I am arguing here is that we are ignoring or removing our heavy elements from our foreward staging areas and moving them to the rear. This is not a disaster in itself, but it pins us to one course of action, one set response, while we wait for heavy forces to move up. This is too risky, too vunerable, and COULD, not definately, but certainly could lead to heavy casualties in our light forces, and I don't like risking lives for technological pride.

Oh, I'm working on the Iceland thing, I'll let you know if I find anything.
Well, I just realized that we'll still have heavy forces around, but not in Europe. I think they're big boys, and can take care of their own defense needs, don't you think? Only a few light forces will be needed there, mostly just to maintain hospitals and airfields there, but also to piss the Russians off, and send them a message not to encroach on the EU. It's sufficient for a show of force, don't you think?
The bulk of our army, I now realized, is already where it needs to be: CENTCOM. In the long term, most of the major conflicts will be in East Asia and in Central and Southwest Asia. Our forces are already there. Of course, I don't think heavy forces will be needed in the Middle East. After all, all we're fighting there are some heavily dug in troops, but in mountains, where tanks can't go. Planes can do the job in coordination with light troops. Heavy forces should be on hand, of course, but why do we need more than a battalion of tanks to defend a base?
And thanks for the Iceland thing, btw.

yeah,well the iceland base is actually a relic from the battle of the atlantic!!,the british had it first up till 1940 or so,then actually handed it over to the the Us before they even entered the war. The icelandics hated the brits and were happy to see them leave.

well the place is navy an air force base,and i don't think it will go soon,as it's used as a refuelling stop .

I think they also partake in hunting down U-boats which pester the allied convoys.....

http://www.naskef.navy.mil/template5.asp?pageid=221

yeah,well the iceland base is actually a relic from the battle of the atlantic!!,the british had it first up till 1940 or so,then actually handed it over to the the Us before they even entered the war. The icelandics hated the brits and were happy to see them leave.

well the place is navy an air force base,and i don't think it will go soon,as it's used as a refuelling stop .

I think they also partake in hunting down U-boats which pester the allied convoys.....

http://www.naskef.navy.mil/template5.asp?pageid=221
I know what it was used for. It's still very strategic, and because of US troop presence, Iceland hasn't had its own military in centuries. It helped to give them one of the highest living standards on the planet.

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1717

Well, its several of months old, but from what I understand there's just under 2000 US troops in Iceland currently (troop totals from 3 months ago), and even before the restructuring was laid out we were gonna pull our troops out and close the base. Iceland protested on the grounds that Russia still encroaches on Iceland's airspace, so the pull out was being reviewed (September).

Hrm...As of July 7th, no decision has been reached...As of August second there are are no mentions of changes, all squardrons there are scheduled for 6 month rotations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/patron-keflavik.htm

Go to the unit's homepage and look it up perhaps? They don't update often, but there might be some word. You can also request specific information by emailing them or something.

Seems like the base will be open still. Hope it helps.

well the base defo has P-3 orions,which are maritime patrol aircraft and they do have a vaild peace time role,ie search and rescue,fishery control and the like. Have a friend who was in rekajavik for a football game, and he was telling me that there was fighters flying over ALL THE TIME!,

its alos meant to be the most depressing place on earth,buts thats just an opinion!


"I have a friend stationed there, who was a paratrooper."

really,it's suppose to ba A NAVAL station,and what the hell would he be parachuting on.............the atlantic?

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1717

Well, its several of months old, but from what I understand there's just under 2000 US troops in Iceland currently (troop totals from 3 months ago), and even before the restructuring was laid out we were gonna pull our troops out and close the base. Iceland protested on the grounds that Russia still encroaches on Iceland's airspace, so the pull out was being reviewed (September).

Hrm...As of July 7th, no decision has been reached...As of August second there are are no mentions of changes, all squardrons there are scheduled for 6 month rotations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/patron-keflavik.htm

Go to the unit's homepage and look it up perhaps? They don't update often, but there might be some word. You can also request specific information by emailing them or something.

Seems like the base will be open still. Hope it helps.
Thanks. I've always wondered why all of these units need their own homepage. I guess, however, it can come in handy.

The only real threat North Korea poses is Nuclear, so ground troops aren't really needed. The North Koreans aren't going to just invade South Korea because NATO will respond and take them out.

It doesn't matter whether US troops in Europe helped win the Cold War or not, but the US did win the cold war by building up arms and causing the Soviet economy to collapse.

well the base defo has P-3 orions,which are maritime patrol aircraft and they do have a vaild peace time role,ie search and rescue,fishery control and the like. Have a friend who was in rekajavik for a football game, and he was telling me that there was fighters flying over ALL THE TIME!,

its alos meant to be the most depressing place on earth,buts thats just an opinion!


"I have a friend stationed there, who was a paratrooper."

really,it's suppose to ba A NAVAL station,and what the hell would he be parachuting on.............the atlantic?
Well, he was there for a few weeks, then he went on a tour of duty in Iraq.
BTW, considering that the interior of the island is practically uninhabited, I suppose it could be used for training exercises. Then again, the air at 15,000ft in Iceland must feel different than that of Iraq.

well i wouldn't say unihabitated!,think its 500,000 ppl,not 100% sure.

the place has light for 18 hours sometimes,that and its like 15 women for every man in the place.


also,with korea from the media in my country i get the impression that the south want the USA to butt out and to let them sort it out with the north, i mean butt out politically

well i wouldn't say unihabitated!,think its 500,000 ppl,not 100% sure.

the place has light for 18 hours sometimes,that and its like 15 women for every man in the place.


also,with korea from the media in my country i get the impression that the south want the USA to butt out and to let them sort it out with the north, i mean butt out politically
It's about 300,000, and with my rough mental math, it's density is 3 people/sq. kg. And according to the CIA World Factbook, most of the island's women are senior citizens :).
Some South Koreans, btw, want us out. In fact, more South Koreans regard the US as a threat than they do North Korea (don't know why, really). However, the elderly, particularly those alive during the Korean War, are begging us to stay. It's quite a divided peninsula, there.
And what country do you live in, btw?

IRELAND,
supposedly the koreans are seen as the irish of asia........alcoholics....LOL

also many families in korea have been totaly split by the DMZ,many ppl have not since loved ones since the truce,

btw,remember macarthur wanted to use nukes against the chinese there!

IRELAND,
supposedly the koreans are seen as the irish of asia........alcoholics....LOL

also many families in korea have been totaly split by the DMZ,many ppl have not since loved ones since the truce,

btw,remember macarthur wanted to use nukes against the chinese there!
I know. But remember, nukes were very new then. Macarthur probably didn't know the effects that well. But hey, it probably was a little too much he was asking for. But we managed the Chinese well. At least they were pushed back to the 38th parallel, even without nuking them.

The Japanese aren't going to dig more occupying forces. Considering all the rapes and stuff that have been going down in Okinawa, where the US military is currently stationed. I think more trooops should be in S. Korea and pssibly around indonesia.

The Japanese aren't going to dig more occupying forces. Considering all the rapes and stuff that have been going down in Okinawa, where the US military is currently stationed. I think more trooops should be in S. Korea and pssibly around indonesia.
I'm guessing you're Japanese, right? If so, why do you see them as occupational forces?

The Japanese aren't going to dig more occupying forces. Considering all the rapes and stuff that have been going down in Okinawa, where the US military is currently stationed. I think more trooops should be in S. Korea and pssibly around indonesia.

Well, Indonesia isn't suitable for large concentrations of forces, but it would probably prove useful to have strategic airbases or ports there...problem is, the locals aren't keen on hosting more troops on their own soil (from what I understand they already get significant military aid from other SE Asian nations and some US help as well). It would be a good place for a minor base, but not a major one; its proximity to Tiawan might be useful...or inflammitory.

Hey, isn't Daistallia in Japan right now? I wonder what the local news is carrying right now about it. I won't know myself until next month at the earliest.

Well, Indonesia isn't suitable for large concentrations of forces, but it would probably prove useful to have strategic airbases or ports there...problem is, the locals aren't keen on hosting more troops on their own soil (from what I understand they already get significant military aid from other SE Asian nations and some US help as well). It would be a good place for a minor base, but not a major one; its proximity to Tiawan might be useful...or inflammitory.


Too bad the Philipines won't let us base there in large numbers. Subic Harbor and Clark AFB were really strategic. To my understanding, actually, the bases are occupied by a few hundred "advisors" again, as the Philipines battle their terrorists. It's too bad, however, that they won't let us fight on their soil.

bump

bump