Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 07, 2004, 10:03:53 AM
-
U.S. to Cut a Third of Troops in S. Korea by 2005 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121958,00.html)
SEOUL, South Korea — The United States wants to withdraw a third of its 37,000 troops from South Korea by the end of next year, U.S. and South Korean officials said Monday as the two countries discussed plans for repositioning soldiers along the Cold War's last frontier.
THAT'S what I'm talking about!
Germany after that?
Love to see them ALL home.
-
End of next year = After the election ... :rolleyes:
I'd LIKE to see them all home, too, but..well..you know...
-
I doubt it was the US that wanted any delay. It's a start though and long past time that we left these countries that are clearly no longer war-ravaged and more than able to take care of themselves.
-
Will they be coming "home" or just being forward deployed to a different front?
-Sik
-
Wait a minute...... North Korea has WMD's!!!
Aren't they next on our hit list?
-
the basing structures that the US has in those locations cannot be abandoned over night. Next year is a very agressive timeline I would say.
-
Bring'em all home.
-
WMD's but no oil - my guess is probably not...
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Wait a minute...... North Korea has WMD's!!!
Aren't they next on our hit list?
Clearly a job for the U.N.
-
The NK's do have WMD's. But let the SK's plan for meeting the conventional threat. Let us move our troops out of the area. Easier to respond to any atomic aggression in kind that way. Harsh, but there it is. Conventional, the SK's should handle it; their economy is far better off than the NK's. Atomic? They can just phone in the coordinates and we'll deliver. ;)
I think they'll initially be redeployed to Iraq, but maybe not. The Iraqi government is taking shape, there's an agreement to disband most of the militias and reincorporate them into Iraqi national forces and a clear intent to have the multi-national force leave Iraq. Distressing, isn't it? ;)
And after Iraq, I'm sure the troops won't be going back to Korea.
There may be stops on the path, but this path leads to bringing them home.
A very positive step, IMO. The 41,000 in Japan and the 72,000 in Germany ought be come home too. ASAP.
-
Reducing our overseas forces is long overdue. Not suggesting we further reduce our military but billions have been funneled into the economies of those countries where we have troops. We can maintain a substantial active force here in the US ready for worldwide deployment while allowing our own citizens to reap the benefits associated with maintaining military bases.
-
Thank God. It's about time.
To all the nay-sayers out there: be our guest! Why dontcha go ahead and handle that little issue ;)
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
WMD's but no oil - my guess is probably not...
You know what's laughable? The Iraqis are doing very well at maintaining control of their oil industry. We're rebuilding it for them better than it was under SH and basically, we'll get no more than any other country out of this deal. They'll be selling to everyone and we're not going to get any special price.
Your war/oil slogans are just more misdirection and baloney.
Maybe what really burns you is that we're giving and you're not. I guess to feel good about that, you have to say stuff like this.
-
Many younger South Koreans today see the United States as an impediment to re-unification of North and South Korea. Just another example, in a endless list of examples, of failure being hard wired into the human experience.
I must say that if the US withdraws all its troops it should be with the understanding that US forces will never again defend South Korea from aggression.
-
sounds like a great plan, start with SK and then start on all the other countries we are stationed in.
like AKIron said, there is plenty of places in this country who's economy could use the lift that the stationing of a few thousand troops would provide.
I'm all for it, I hope it plays out, and doesn't become just another "checks in the mail", election year pipe-dream.
-
Yeah, we shouldn't have to go back. If bad stuff happens and they get pushed back into the Pusan perimeter again I'm sure the rest of the UN would rush to bail them out.
:rofl
-
What's the point if they start throwing those nukes at you Toad?
Return ticket?
-
Sorry, too cryptic Saw. Who throws nukes?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You know what's laughable? The Iraqis are doing very well at maintaining control of their oil industry. We're rebuilding it for them better than it was under SH and basically, we'll get no more than any other country out of this deal. They'll be selling to everyone and we're not going to get any special price.
Your war/oil slogans are just more misdirection and baloney.
Maybe what really burns you is that we're giving and you're not. I guess to feel good about that, you have to say stuff like this.
Toad. that is all so dishonest. The oil industry is better then it was under Sadam cause the US destroyed it and boycotted it.
The militias that are disbanding to join the Iraq army are the very forces that the US has been fighting full bore for the last two months. So all these guys are enemies one day and then allies of the US the next. You find this encouraging in some way but really it was the choice of the US to fight them or not. They chose to fight them and now they choose not to. And you present this as encouraging. Could not the same effect have been accomplished without fighting them? Basically your presenting a US capitulation as progress..thats really funny but sad that so many people had to die before the US gave in.
-
:rolleyes:
-
pongo, you are so full of sh*t its discombobulating :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
I doubt it was the US that wanted any delay. It's a start though and long past time that we left these countries that are clearly no longer war-ravaged and more than able to take care of themselves.
Hear hear!
-
Sorry Toad, I'll try again in french:
You seemed upset not long ago(rightfully so) that NK was nearing (has acchieved?) its goal to have lots of WMD (nukes in this case). And now you want to take the police away? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't want NK running around playing with firecrackers... but what can I do... send the Luxemburgish army? ;)
-
If you're saying we destroyed their oil industry by military action, I'd have to ask you why saving their oil industry was such a high priority in both wars. Remember the rush to keep SH from blowing up Iraqi wells? That's taking care of your people, eh?
As for the US boycott... hmmm... what was that about the UN "oil for food program"? Seems like the UN was the one controlling the Iraqi oil sales in the post GW1 period. Oh..wait.. let me guess.. THAT was a US deal that we made the UN agree to do, right? Because if it's a "good" UN thing, all credit goes to the UN. If it's a "bad" UN thing, all blame to the US. "Good" and "bad" being a relative thing that can change in a moment, depending upon the intent of the poster I guess.
As for militias, I think you're not digging deep enough into the news. This is simply incorrect; incredibly so, but I guess it sounds good even if it's totally false:
Originally posted by Pongo
The militias that are disbanding to join the Iraq army are the very forces that the US has been fighting full bore for the last two months. So all these guys are enemies one day and then allies of the US the next.
There's been one major element, Sadr's militia, that we have been fighting the last two months. Note that the new Iraqi government is not including that one in the deal.
CNN says:
...The agreement excludes the Mehdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which launched an uprising against coalition forces two months ago...
...Al-Sadr's army will officially be outlawed Monday afternoon, according to a senior coalition official. His militia wasn't approached to take part in the new arrangement...
So your statement is just plain wrong.
I don't think of it as capitulation, either. From what I've read, the Marines were ready to clean out Fallujah while admitting it would have cost lives on both sides. However, the decision was made by the politicos to allow the Iraqis to try to solve the problem themselves with our help. Looks like that's working. Further, that's exactly what's needed. The Iraqi "government" need to start taking control of their country and their citizens. It has to establish itself as "authority" before free elections can be held.
And before you go on the "freedom fighter uprising" trail, do a bit of research on that too. Generally, Sadr's militia is/was viewed by the Iraqis in Fallujah and Najaf as a "thug" outfit on the order of the Al Capone Mafia. They shakedown merchants with "protection rackets" and kill the local competition. The have their own kangaroo courts and jails. I think what you're seeing here is Iraqis finally saying "enough!" Shiites in Najaf protest marched against Sadr just a few weeks ago.
Check this one out:
Fighters Loyal to Radical Cleric Start Pullout From 2 Iraq Cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html?ex=1087099200&en=5132d03fb04d2c3e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)
...At the same time, Mr. Sadr met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, according to widespread reports. The meeting suggested that Mr. Sadr was being given a face-saving gesture by appearing with Ayatollah Sistani, whose prestige across Iraq far exceeds that of Mr. Sadr...
Sadr's about done in; and he did it all by himself. He's a PITA to the common Iraqi and he can't make it like that.
You view it as capitulation. I suggest that's because it fits your views of "failure".
I view it as moving down the road to a free and independent Iraq.
The idea that we were "losing" to Sadr is ludicrous. Compare the casualty reports. What's clear to me is that we were staying our hand for political purposes.
There IS NO DOUBT that we could have removed Sadr and his militia militarily. It might have taken a full scale military operation but we took down SH's entire military in a rather short time if you recall.
Nope. This is a necessary step on the road to Iraq's true independence. They have to start taking over their own problems. Sadr the thug is one of those and it looks like progress has been made.
-
Yeah, I think it's a genuine bad thing for Kim Jong Il to have nukes. Unlike Pongo, I think I sleep a lot safer with Bush having nukes and Kim not having nukes. I'm guessing most folks think that along with me.
As for "police", Korea has a multi-national UN force. If the US withdraws its troops, I'm sure we'll still leave a few there, commensurate with what other nations provide.
I would have to ask YOU why you think the US should be the UN member providing the bulk of the "police" there. We've done that for over 50 years; isn't time for a few others to step up and do their turn?
On another front, it seems to me that the approach Bush has taken with the NK's has started to bear fruit. Much to the dismay of many on this BBS, no doubt.
Japan PM Says N.Korea Wants Progress at Nuke Talks (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5357593)
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il told Koizumi at talks in Pyongyang last month that North Korea wanted to be nuclear-free and intended to use the multilateral forum to achieve that goal, the Japanese prime minister said on the eve of his departure for a Group of Eight leaders' summit in the United States.
Sounds like a start to me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I think it's a genuine bad thing for Kim Jong Il to have nukes. Unlike Pongo, I think I sleep a lot safer with Bush having nukes and Kim not having nukes. I'm guessing most folks think that along with me.
As for "police", Korea has a multi-national UN force. If the US withdraws its troops, I'm sure we'll still leave a few there, commensurate with what other nations provide.
I would have to ask YOU why you think the US should be the UN member providing the bulk of the "police" there. We've done that for over 50 years; isn't time for a few others to step up and do their turn?
for one I'd be happier if neither had them, we can launch a devastating conventional attack, having the ability to nuke another country doesn't do anything to help if nukes are used by others.
even if you nuke NK before they can hit any other countries, we've still irradiated our own damn planet.
as to the last of your post I couldn't agree more, I see no reason for us to provide support above and beyond our allotment of troops to the UN.
it would benefit us on many levels.
1. we aren't spending our tax dollars to secure other countries.
2. as Iron posted earlier, having our troops stationed here instead of overseas would have them spending their pay to boost our economy.
3. if our involvement was just through the UN, then (proportionately) we wouldn't be any more or less involved in other countries affairs than any other UN member-nation. I think this would go a long way twards lessoning our status as a target. when people go through political upheaval and their lives are lost, in danger, or at the very least seriously disrupted, we always seem to be there, right in the middle of things. I makes it pretty easy for the opposition to convince some guy who lost everything that we are the cause, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, if a man believes it he's now our enemy.
when did we take a vote and decide to be this worlds cop? I didn't vote on it, my fathers 83 he doesn't remember voting on it either.
-
shucks!! i had some good times over there (4 years). ill miss the place (now i had some good times there but i wouldnt pay to go there...i let the army do that.)
-
As I said... I could vote so that they send the Luxemburgish army :)
If the UN stays, I'm happy with that.
-
All troops home.... NOW..!!!
(With the exceptition of Iraq and Afganistan)
-
I guess this proves that the US is a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys.
Thank you in a advance for jumping into my boat.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
As I said... I could vote so that they send the Luxemburgish army :)
If the UN stays, I'm happy with that.
I know it's probably completely unfair. but every time you mention "the Luxemburgish army", I get visions of that old Peter Sellers movie 'The Mouse that Roared'.
-
It is an even older and better book.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I guess this proves that the US is a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys.
Thank you in a advance for jumping into my boat.
Thrawn, how about sending the Canadian Army to Korea to replace ours? Make yourselfs useful...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I guess this proves that the US is a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys.
Thank you in a advance for jumping into my boat.
Dear Thrawn,
I surrender.
Yours truly,
VOR
PS: If I have erroneously categorized you as an invading army instead of a dictator seeking appeasment, please hit the reply button now and provide an appropriate list of demands, and your post will be answered in the order in which it was recieved.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Dear Thrawn,
I surrender.
Yours truly,
VOR
PS: If I have erroneously categorized you as an invading army instead of a dictator seeking appeasment, please hit the reply button now and provide an appropriate list of demands, and your post will be answered in the order in which it was recieved.
I didn't know you were French!!!!
-
Your right on one point Toad - why do the USA still have forces based in Western Europe?? Huge bases here in the UK but for what purpose ?? We clearly don't see a threat locally as most of our forces are abroad or have been "downsized" . As far as I'm concerned yeah send em home.
But you're an intelligent guy so I was baffled by this .... We're rebuilding it for them better than it was under SH and basically, we'll get no more than any other country out of this deal. They'll be selling to everyone and we're not going to get any special price.
Your war/oil slogans are just more misdirection and baloney.
[/b]
I can't honestly believe that you think that the Iraq invasion was to secure a democratic and peaceful regime in Iraq. You may not be going to get a special price on your oil but you will certainly get a "special relationship" with the incoming regime which gives you influence and maybe veto over the worlds second largest energy reserve. My guess is it will look a lot like Saudi in a couple of years - a powerful upper class of "elected" people with strong business ties to the US helping them maintain their position and a large number of contract "advisers" and "consultants" propping up the military structure.
Iraq is not about price per barrel or whos label is on the barrel. Its about strategic influence in the region and over the use of the resource.
The fact that it borders Iran who has the other major reserves is purely coincidental :rolleyes:
If this is such a humanitarian mission then why don't other deserving causes get a similar benevolent guiding hand?
Come on Toad you can't be that naive.
Oh and BTW if you look at my previous posts since the beginning of the conflict then you will see I'm not against it, I think we should just be honest about why we are there and get on with it. We don't need the worlds short term major energy resource in the hands of Stone Age headslapping nutters.
Sparks
-
Originally posted by storch
I didn't know you were French!!!!
:rofl
-
Ya maybe I dove too quick on that one. I aggree its good news either way.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
:rofl
what??? I didn't :confused:
-
Well,
-
Originally posted by Otto
Thrawn, how about sending the Canadian Army to Korea to replace ours? Make yourselfs useful...
Like by helping our allies fight in Afghanstan, being in command of ISFOR in Afghanistan, helping our secure Haiti, all the while peacekeeping in Bosnia? I'll tell the CF to get right on it...oops already done. ;)
-
Sparks,
I think we have forces in WE as a remnant of the Cold War. There was a time when there was a purpose. Now, even as a "forward deployment" they're in the wrong place IMO. I doubt any of us see major ground combat in Europe in the near term.
OTOH, as a "forward deployment" it's probably advantageous to have the heavy equipment and stores there rather than in US East Coast bases. We've all seen that every military spends more on combat equipment than transport equipment. We've all seen the problem of getting the combat equipment to where it's needed as a result.
So, perhaps there's minor justification but I feel it's long past time to address the issue. Bring them home, build more/better/faster transportation for them.
you think that the Iraq invasion was to secure a democratic and peaceful regime in Iraq.
I don't. Never did. This was an inevitable "byproduct" goal however. SH had to be replaced with something and it sure as heck wasn't going to be another dictator. They may end up there, who really knows. But it's not going to start out that way.
you will certainly get a "special relationship" with the incoming regime which gives you influence and maybe veto over the worlds second largest energy reserve.
Seriously doubt that. They're not THAT much in love with us and they seem pretty intent on asserting their independence and sovereignity. As well they should be.
Its about strategic influence in the region and over the use of the resource.
It is about strategic influence, true. I think events in Libya have shown that. No, I'm not one of the one's that believes Ghadaffi was begging for raproachment for the last 10 years. Sorry, Lockerbie and buying uranium from NK show an unbroken line of intent over the years to me.
Surely it's meant as a statement to Iran as well. They weren't named in the "Axis of Evil" speech on a whim. They saw a force much smaller than the GW1 force roll up SH's military in an amazingly short time. I doubt that was lost on them.
If this is such a humanitarian mission then why don't other deserving causes get a similar benevolent guiding hand?
Because no one is willing? Basically no one was willing to do Iraq, were they? The US, GB, Australia and a few others.
Do you have any doubt that, given the desire, the "world" as represented by the UN has the ability to go into dungholes like the Sudan and clean out the people doing the genocide?
Sure, we all could do that. But people would die. It's pretty clear there's a lot of folks willing to bemoan the state of affairs but dang few willing to die to change them.
Not a condemnation there, just an observation.
Use of the resource?
Unless I seriously miss my guess, Iraq will simply return to being another OPEC member with oil to sell on the world market. We'll be paying the going rate to them just like everyone else.
Possibly they'd do us the favor of pumping more oil to moderate prices like the Saudis just did. That's about all I'd hope for or expect.
Come on Changing World Technologies! Biodiesel from turkey blood!! ;)
-
I'm not French, I was merely in appeasement/surrender mode. In light of Thrawn's unequivocal proof that I live in a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys, I felt overwhelmed by the facts, and therefore compelled to adhere to my new niche.
In retrospect, perhaps his outburst was not based on factual information and was merely an unqualified internet defection, in which case I may have surrendered prematurely.
-
Yeah,
Nearly 500 Canucks in Haiti, 2100 in Afghanistan, 650 in Bosnia, 200 in the Golan Heights.
Altogether ~3800 of your total 8000 deployable troops are already overseas.
So, no way you guys could replace the 37,000 we have in Korea alone. It'd have to be a bunch of UN countries just to fill that slot, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
as to the last of your post I couldn't agree more, I see no reason for us to provide support above and beyond our allotment of troops to the UN.
it would benefit us on many levels.
1. we aren't spending our tax dollars to secure other countries.
2. as Iron posted earlier, having our troops stationed here instead of overseas would have them spending their pay to boost our economy.
3. if our involvement was just through the UN, then (proportionately) we wouldn't be any more or less involved in other countries affairs than any other UN member-nation. I think this would go a long way twards lessoning our status as a target. when people go through political upheaval and their lives are lost, in danger, or at the very least seriously disrupted, we always seem to be there, right in the middle of things. I makes it pretty easy for the opposition to convince some guy who lost everything that we are the cause, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, if a man believes it he's now our enemy.
when did we take a vote and decide to be this worlds cop? I didn't vote on it, my fathers 83 he doesn't remember voting on it either.
I agree with you here Capt Apathy. Good post.
-
Altogether ~3800 of your total 8000 deployable troops are already overseas.
Half of your troops on overseas assingments is very good. They are appreciated and 'Thank You".
Having only 8000 to send makes me think I'm paying for your Defense Budget.
-
Besides I think SK has enough of a modern military machine to take NK if they ever try to doa suicide move like invading the south.
I'm not current with the state of military strength and serviceable equipment NK has but I think the South could take care of em rather well if they ever do such thing.
I think the fact that the US didn't invade NK has to do with China I don't think they will take it lightly that the USA is invading a country on their border, it might even send China into attacking Taiwan
-
Originally posted by Otto
Having only 8000 to send makes me think I'm paying for your Defense Budget.
Partially? Indeed although I don't imagine anyone really has a desire to attack Canada for the time being. I certainly do think that the our current budget for the Department of National Defence is laughable...if it was so sad. But fear not, the Conservative Party of Canada is kicking some butt in the polls and they have plans to increase defence spending in Canada by about 50%.
-
Population Canada: 31,629,000 Troops Deployed: ~4000 = .01264% of population deployed.
Population US: 290,809,777 Troops Deployed: ~250,000 = .0859% of population deployed.
31629000 x .0859% = 27,169 Troops Deployed
Looks like those Conservatives have a long pull ahead of them.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like those Conservatives have a long pull ahead of them.
Don't get me started...too late.
Freaking yes they do. But our brilliant Liberal government just spent 2.1 billion on three resupply ships. Sure we need resupply ships but cripes, that 2.1 could have been spent better, like heavy lifting cargo planes to start. Frick! Hell for a faction of that we could have got the heavy lifters we need, but it's all about the pork.
Still, 50% increase isn't pocket change. It is a great start...start. The Conservative and the Liberals are running neck and neck right now. And if you follow the campaigns, it seems to me that the Liberals are faultering and the Conservatives are building momentum.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well,
I dont totaly aggree with you. But reading your post made it clear I have nothing to debate the issue with. And I do think its good news no matter how it came about. I cant wait to read Bremers book after this has settled down.