Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Guest102513-1 · 10-10-2012, 12:40 PM

Now the little toad resorts to roaring with it's little mouth, can't win by posting nonsense...so now it will try to yell....

Sadly another epic failure by the little toad....Shall we try one more time......

Jump little toad, jump

timpage · 10-10-2012, 01:10 PM

HA.
Idiot.

JD Barleycorn · 10-10-2012, 01:43 PM

Like Captain Sulu did in Star Trek 6 I will give the shit for brains something else to shoot at. I have a military career in two different services. I could redact my DD 214 but it would still not convince and it might away too much to some very questionable people on this site. Reducing the size of our military in order not to offend gives confidence to evil doers around the world. You don't avoid trouble by looking meek, you avoid trouble by looking strong. Why do you thing that in wars some ships try to look helpless? They want the bad guys to come in close and be overconfident. Then they shoot the bad guys in the head. The problem with this administration is that they not only want to look weak, they want us to be weak. Very simple concept going back hundreds of years and effective.

Guest102513-1 · 10-10-2012, 01:48 PM

Hey JDB, and now I'm being serious....don't you think by us reducing our military presence in places like Japan, Korea and Europe...is not a question of being meek. But instead, being smart, and letting those countries...especially in Japan and Europe...be more pro-active in taking care of their own nat'l security interests????

Heck, if we could meet agreement on this subject, there would be savings. which we then could be place both in the military and non-militiary areas of the budget.

Notice: little toad...the adults are now speaking...you are to continue to be quiet and play with your little toy soldiers

Yssup Rider · 10-10-2012, 02:59 PM

We don't need hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world to keep our country safe and secure. Evil doers are not going to overrun Japan and Germany because we reduce our troop levels. Evil doers will do evil whether we're there or not. I'm with vkmaster.

PLUS we could use the savings to fund PBS and Planned Parenthood.

Guest102513-1 · 10-10-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkmaster

Hey JDB, and now I'm being serious....don't you think by us reducing our military presence in places like Japan, Korea and Europe...is not a question of being meek. But instead, being smart, and letting those countries...especially in Japan and Europe...be more pro-active in taking care of their own nat'l security interests????

Heck, if we could meet agreement on this subject, there would be savings. which we then could be place both in the military and non-militiary areas of the budget.

Notice: little toad...the adults are now speaking...you are to continue to be quiet and play with your little toy soldiers

All of us that participate in these Nat'l Sandbox threads, IMO, would classify ourself as a proud American.

Of course, in that process, we will have certain areas, where we will never agree...no matter how much postings or linking or articles.

However this is an area where I would like to get some input on, both sides..but especially the conservative crowd.

I would like to think there are a number of ways at supporting this idea. From a military standpoint...I'm not advocationg an announcement tomorrow, that we are pulling all our troops within 48hours, which are on foreign soil...not at all.

Many will say, we need troops in these various areas to support our allies. But by gradually pulling our troops from selected areas, like ones I mention, those countries would have more pressure placed upon themselves to develop their own military power. And if we get into a World conflict, again from a military standpoint...wouldn't it be better to have allies that already have made an investment into their own military, rather than the heavy reliance they have placed upon us????

A lot more I could say...but for now, I'll wait and see what, if any re-action this post gets

CuteOldGuy · 10-10-2012, 04:26 PM

I'm not a right winger, but I think the only reason we have our troops around the world is to protect Big Oil and Big Banks. Our allies can take care of themselves, and Big Oil and Big Banking can pay for their own damn security.

Guest102513-1 · 10-10-2012, 04:56 PM

Ok, COG, interesting point of view, and one that I did not consider...help me understand ur point

How do US troops in places like Japan, Europe and say Korea help protect the Big Oil and Banks

HOnest question

IMO, I would say that both of these industries have the strongest lobby pull in Congress (both sides)...but don't see the connection to US troops aboard

i'va biggen · 10-10-2012, 07:05 PM

things change and this may have,but when I served the country's where we had troops stationed payed us for it.It was more cost effective than housing them in the US.Plus they were closer to where a outbreak might occur,so a response would be quicker..

dilbert firestorm · 10-10-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekim008

things change and this may have,but when I served the country's where we had troops stationed payed us for it.It was more cost effective than housing them in the US.Plus they were closer to where a outbreak might occur,so a response would be quicker..

expanding on his point a bit...

I suspect that the RDF (Rapid Deployment Force) wasn't practical on large scale. that's why we have all those overseas bases. those bases are our RDF.

I B Hankering · 10-10-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekim008

things change and this may have,but when I served the country's where we had troops stationed payed us for it.It was more cost effective than housing them in the US.Plus they were closer to where a outbreak might occur,so a response would be quicker..

Correct!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

expanding on his point a bit...

I suspect that the RDF (Rapid Deployment Force) wasn't practical on large scale. that's why we have all those overseas bases. those bases are our RDF.

Correct! The U.S. could not deploy to places like Afghanistan without forward support bases like those in Germany.

TexTushHog · 10-12-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I would like to have the lowest taxes in the industrialized world, and have the FEWEST government services.

Then you're probably not going to have a huge army that can fight two wars at once. They two issues are obviously linked.

JD Barleycorn · 10-13-2012, 01:14 AM

I don't really hear any conservative, pro-military people say that we should have troops around the world. Think of the old west. At one time the army had forts in Detroit and St. Louis. The time for forts passed and they were closed. The troops moved on to Omaha, El Paso, and Denver.

In the world of yesterday we needed troops in Japan, Germany, and Italy. Those days have passed. We no longer NEED troops there but sometimes it is awfully damned convenient to have troops within a six hour flight of a trouble spot. Do we need to watch or protect Japan, Germany, or Italy today? No, the frontier has passed them by. The new frontier is Quatar, Iraq, and Somalia. Not because they are trouble makers but because they are close to potential troublemakers. That is what Ryan was talking about last night. One thing Bush wanted was a permanent presence in Iraq with a fast reaction force already in theater. Obama and Hillary just pissed away our opportunity for a fairly safe, secure base in the Middle East.
Some will mistakenly say that I am a warmonger but imagine a foreign asshole planning some trouble in the middle east and he is reminded that the US has 30,000 soldiers just four hours away with a lot of support. I believe if we have to go to war then we go to war to win as quickly as possible with as few US deaths as possible.

Look at history; when the embassy was overrun in Iran where was our nearest base? Probably the Philippines. When the barracks was bombed in Lebanon our nearest base was Germany. When Iraq invaded Kuwait the troops to prevent an invasion of Saudi Arabia came from California. Just imagine the flexibility of having a base in the Iraqi desert with a modern highway to modern port facilities a hundred miles away. It would have been away from most Iraqi cities, isolated, and well armed. Pissed away by the amateur.

dilbert firestorm · 10-13-2012, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

In the world of yesterday we needed troops in Japan, Germany, and Italy. Those days have passed. We no longer NEED troops there but sometimes it is awfully damned convenient to have troops within a six hour flight of a trouble spot. Do we need to watch or protect Japan, Germany, or Italy today? No, the frontier has passed them by. The new frontier is Quatar, Iraq, and Somalia.

there comes a time when it is obviously time to reconfigure the military posture of these bases. it is undoubtedly time to remove troops from Europe (I don't think Poland wants us to leave), and Japan. U.S. presence isn't really needed there. S. Korea is a question mark due to the fact S.K. & N.K. is still at a state of war and no treaty was ever signed by any parties involved in that conflict.