NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is so stupid right, that is what he would like you to think. There is not a better plan than to make people think you're stupid and surpassing expectations or doing something opposite of what they thought you could do.

I believe it was August 1 when John Kerry said on George Stephanopoulos Sunday Morning Show that He would pull the troops out of Iraq and even think about pulling troops out of Europe and the Korean Penisula.

So what does Bush do, he goes and does it, proposing a plan to pull troops out of Germany and Korea. The Kerry response, that it was the wrong thing to do, it shows a lack of commitment and so on. HELLO! What exactly does Kerry stand for? Does the major media report this? The answer would be a not very suprising no.

Besides, what exactly are our troops doing in Germany anyway? A nation that hates our guts and the Cold War has been over for 13 years. Yeah, the Soviet Union is going to time travel into the future to take over today, thats really gonna happen. In Korea I have to admit that I think the troops have to stay. North Korea is still a dangerous threat. The point is that Kerry said he would think about pulling troops out of the Penisula, Bush does it, now Kerry is against it.

Whether you like it or not Bush has called the bluff on Kerry and Kerry has played right into Bush's trap. Not so stupid eh?

One might pause to consider that our relations to those countries have changed since Kerry supported removing troops from Germany and Korea. it also occurs to me to wonder why Bush didn't remove the troops earlier himself, if he likes the idea.

So what does Bush do, he goes and does it, proposing a plan to pull troops out of Germany and Korea. The Kerry response, that it was the wrong thing to do, it shows a lack of commitment and so on. HELLO! What exactly does Kerry stand for? Does the major media report this? The answer would be a not very suprising no.

Besides, what exactly are our troops doing in Germany anyway? A nation that hates our guts and the Cold War has been over for 13 years. Yeah, the Soviet Union is going to time travel into the future to take over today, thats really gonna happen. In Korea I have to admit that I think the troops have to stay. North Korea is still a dangerous threat. The point is that Kerry said he would think about pulling troops out of the Penisula, Bush does it, now Kerry is against it.

First, I like how you identify you think pulling troops out of Korea is a bad idea because of the threat N. Korea poses....but clearly that is nowhere near as important as what you feel is a Kerry flip-flop.

Why do we have troops in Germany and the rest of Europe? Granted this piece is opinion, but it explains pretty well why troops are there...

"The reasons are fairly simple. In Europe after the Cold War, the United States decided to significantly reduce its former troop levels but to leave sufficient military forces on the ground to accomplish three objectives: help ensure that peace and stability on the continent would endure; have the capacity to support NATO and European Union expansion and project the communities of democracies eastward; and provide the political and military glue to enable our allies to reorient themselves militarily and prepare, together with the United States, to address new conflicts beyond the continent's borders."

"Each of these goals remains important. Each will be undercut by the president's plan. With transatlantic relations badly frayed, Russia turning away from democracy and the United States facing the challenge of projecting stability from the Balkans to the Black Sea, Washington should be putting forward a plan to repair the transatlantic alliance, not ruin it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9784-2004Aug17.html

I believe it was August 1 when John Kerry said on George Stephanopoulos Sunday Morning Show that He would pull the troops out of Iraq and even think about pulling troops out of Europe and the Korean Penisula.


The quotes I saw did not say he would "pull out of Europe and the Korean Peninsula," it said he would change the deployment there. That could've meant changing out people, reducing, or increasing.

[QUOTE=Besides, what exactly are our troops doing in Germany anyway?[/QUOTE]
Ramstein Air Force Base is in Germany. Air Force MPs are currently guarding many places in Germany.

You wonder why we have troops in Germany. Well, why do we have troops all over the whole freaking world? We have loads of troops in Hawaii, HELLO WWII IS OVER! Oh, wait, it's really darn strategic to have a naval base in the middle of the Pacific ocean. Germany is right next to, and used to be a part of Eastern Europe. I don't know if you follow the news of those regions, but it is a bunch of poor angry folks up there, and it's nice to keep a presence. Also, if you notice that we have some great hospital facilities there that we take injured troops to.

As for Korea, I don't like Bush or Kerry, but if Bush is in any way seriously supporting removing troops from Korea EVER, then kiss my vote goodbye. What happened to the "Axis of Evil" and protecting us from terrorism? Heck, forget terrorism, NUKES.

We have a load of bases around the world to protect our interests (which for the most part is nearly everything). And earlier someone else made a good point, you DO seem more interested in bashing Kerry than actually listening to what your own brain tells you is a good idea.

Blech, this is why I want a third party canidate. Though I respect Nader...no.

-Fury

PS: look me up and telegram for aditional commentary

As for Korea, I don't like Bush or Kerry, but if Bush is in any way seriously supporting removing troops from Korea EVER, then kiss my vote goodbye. What happened to the "Axis of Evil" and protecting us from terrorism? Heck, forget terrorism, NUKES.

Do you ever think that moving troops from Korea to places like Japan is about strategically potioning them where they couldn't be as easily wiped out in a preemptive North Korean assault on South Korea yet still are near enough to the region to provide as a deterant.

GW plan isn't brillent, it's just logical

most of the troops in korea are stilling in post-war forticications that have been pre-sighted by north korean artilery and would be wiped out in the first 5 hours of any war. so why keep them there

as for Germany, I don't think they'll be kicking up any dust soon, they're just entered their pacifist streek, and while its true we do need to keep people in Germany we could easily keep the Ramstien airforce base, its ginormous military hospital open, its troop barracks full with infantry ready to deploy and experiment with missile defence with less than 25,000 troops. but we have 50,000 there. I know the Germans say it will harm their ecconomy but who cares, its harming our and keeping soldiers where soldiers don't need to be.

Bush is so stupid right, that is what he would like you to think. There is not a better plan than to make people think you're stupid and surpassing expectations or doing something opposite of what they thought you could do.

I believe it was August 1 when John Kerry said on George Stephanopoulos Sunday Morning Show that He would pull the troops out of Iraq and even think about pulling troops out of Europe and the Korean Penisula.

So what does Bush do, he goes and does it, proposing a plan to pull troops out of Germany and Korea. The Kerry response, that it was the wrong thing to do, it shows a lack of commitment and so on. HELLO! What exactly does Kerry stand for? Does the major media report this? The answer would be a not very suprising no.

Besides, what exactly are our troops doing in Germany anyway? A nation that hates our guts and the Cold War has been over for 13 years. Yeah, the Soviet Union is going to time travel into the future to take over today, thats really gonna happen. In Korea I have to admit that I think the troops have to stay. North Korea is still a dangerous threat. The point is that Kerry said he would think about pulling troops out of the Penisula, Bush does it, now Kerry is against it.

Whether you like it or not Bush has called the bluff on Kerry and Kerry has played right into Bush's trap. Not so stupid eh?

i would like to recognise the fact that kerry never said he would reduce troop deployment in korea and europe, he said it would be changed, good job, you fell in the idiots tiger trap

Do you ever think that moving troops from Korea to places like Japan is about strategically potioning them where they couldn't be as easily wiped out in a preemptive North Korean assault on South Korea yet still are near enough to the region to provide as a deterant.

North Korea has test fired missiles OVER Japan. And they have nukes. If taking out US troops was his intent then Okinawa is well within easy range. Frankly - it seems to me that having troops on the ground in South Korea serves as more of a deterrent than without. By attacking South Korea Kim would be attacking US troops which would immediately bring in reinforcements. Without the troops there, he may be able to get away with more and push for a diplomatic solution.

And if push comes to shove and you need to go in, having all your heavy equipment on the other side of the Sea of Japan is a complicating factor - not a safety one. Who is going to grant you land access to land your troops and tanks if it became neccessary? China? Korea is a peninsula so your options are pretty damn limited. Right now you have men and materiel on the ground that can be used without the need for as much of a visible buildup. And the costs associated with maintaining the troops in South Korea versus Japan are pretty much equivalent anyway.

So moving them from Korea to Japan makes no real sense. It seems like you would be doing something just for the sake of doing something.

We have loads of troops in Hawaii, HELLO WWII IS OVER! Oh, wait, it's really darn strategic to have a naval base in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

HELLO!!!! HAWAII is a STATE IN THE US of A!

The Japanese hate the american military prescence in Okinawa (while I'm sure the koreans don't care for it much either). Nobody ever points out how Bush "flip-flops" even within his own speeches. Sometimes it's good to change your mind on issues. You could call FDR's unwillingness to go to war in 1941 and his change to wanting to go to war in december a flip-flop but was it a bad decision?

Bush is so stupid right, that is what he would like you to think. There is not a better plan than to make people think you're stupid and surpassing expectations or doing something opposite of what they thought you could do.

I believe it was August 1 when John Kerry said on George Stephanopoulos Sunday Morning Show that He would pull the troops out of Iraq and even think about pulling troops out of Europe and the Korean Penisula.

So what does Bush do, he goes and does it, proposing a plan to pull troops out of Germany and Korea. The Kerry response, that it was the wrong thing to do, it shows a lack of commitment and so on. HELLO! What exactly does Kerry stand for? Does the major media report this? The answer would be a not very suprising no.

Besides, what exactly are our troops doing in Germany anyway? A nation that hates our guts and the Cold War has been over for 13 years. Yeah, the Soviet Union is going to time travel into the future to take over today, thats really gonna happen. In Korea I have to admit that I think the troops have to stay. North Korea is still a dangerous threat. The point is that Kerry said he would think about pulling troops out of the Penisula, Bush does it, now Kerry is against it.

Whether you like it or not Bush has called the bluff on Kerry and Kerry has played right into Bush's trap. Not so stupid eh?

I can tell you exactly why we are in germany. They want our money. We pay the german government money to be there. We have supported that country since world war two.

GW plan isn't brillent, it's just logical

most of the troops in korea are stilling in post-war forticications that have been pre-sighted by north korean artilery and would be wiped out in the first 5 hours of any war. so why keep them there

as for Germany, I don't think they'll be kicking up any dust soon, they're just entered their pacifist streek, and while its true we do need to keep people in Germany we could easily keep the Ramstien airforce base, its ginormous military hospital open, its troop barracks full with infantry ready to deploy and experiment with missile defence with less than 25,000 troops. but we have 50,000 there. I know the Germans say it will harm their ecconomy but who cares, its harming our and keeping soldiers where soldiers don't need to be.

Actually, moves have already been discussed (and I believe some have been done) to move the US troops out of the DMZ towards southern positions and let the South Korean Army man the lines. This puts the American troops in a far better strategic position should the poop ever hit the rotating blades.

Regarding Europe, there is still something to be said for rapid reaction criteria to having a fair bit of materiel there. Moving armour from North America to pretty much anywhere is a time-consuming process. But certainly the troop levels can be reduced if you leave a chunk of equipment in storage but move most of the families home.

I can tell you exactly why we are in germany. They want our money. We pay the german government money to be there. We have supported that country since world war two.

Oh, and I'm german, my parents were born in germany, I was born in the US after my father joined the US Army

"Germany" was never part of the eastern bloc. After WW2, Germany was divided into two nations, the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) and the BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). The BRD was larger, and a member of NATO. The DDR was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Once West Germany was allowed to rearm in the 50's, it was fully capable of defending itself against a Soviet attack. The German army is, even now, one of the, if not the, best in Europe...

wow, a mostly non-bashing bush thread!? whoa. *tag*
this is sorta like kerry being pro-defense despite having voted just about every weapons system in the cold war, right?
*yawn*

i would like to recognise the fact that kerry never said he would reduce troop deployment in korea and europe, he said it would be changed, good job, you fell in the idiots tiger trap

Chess Squares, in this case, your right about that. He said he would REDUCE TROOP DEPLOYMENT but didn't say he would pull them out! Thanks for pointing this out to him.

"Germany" was never part of the eastern bloc. After WW2, Germany was divided into two nations, the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) and the BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). The BRD was larger, and a member of NATO. The DDR was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Once West Germany was allowed to rearm in the 50's, it was fully capable of defending itself against a Soviet attack. The German army is, even now, one of the, if not the, best in Europe...

Numbers my boy. Numbers.

They may be good but the Soviets had a ton of men and equipment to loose.

If the US had said fine "defend yourself" They probably would have rolled over Europe.

CAN we please CLARIFY the issue?

GW has approved plans for a GRADUAL pull out of Europe and the Orient.
These plans have taken YEARS for the military to put together, so this isnt a slapdash quicky ploy... this is long term strategic thinking.

The plan calls for a REDUCTION IN FORCES in these places, NOT a complete withdrawal. There are over 60k troops stationed in Europe. We can cut that by 2/3, and still have nothing to fear. There are almost 40k troops on line in the Orient. Their mission really sux... they are a tripwire, and expected to die; so as the buy time for an American response to NK invasion. Those troops can be reduced by 1/2... and still accomplish their mission.

So out of +/- 100k troops, we can move about 60k back to the USA (where it is cheaper to support them), or we can parcel them out to places where they are needed.

Use your own brains, people. Dont just react and do what the political and media commentators say. THINK. :headbang:

So out of +/- 100k troops, we can move about 60k back to the USA (where it is cheaper to support them), or we can parcel them out to places where they are needed.

Along the same line....

"Some of the troops would be moved to posts in Eastern Europe while others would be based in the United States, available for deployment overseas, White House officials said. It remained unclear if the overall number of U.S. troops stationed overseas would drop."

"The plan could gain Bush election-year applause from military families, but it won't ease the strain on 150,000 U.S. soldiers deployed to war zones and still battling violent factions in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The president said he would move "some of our troops and capabilities to new locations so they can surge quickly to deal with unexpected threats." Poland and Turkey have been mentioned as possible locations for additional troops."

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2179956