Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 09, 2004, 09:19:21 AM
-
First we had:
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.
Before you can stop rejoicing over that, we get THIS present:
Pentagon Wants to Reduce Troops in Germany (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122224,00.html)
The Pentagon has advised Germany that as part of a global shifting of U.S. military forces, it wants to withdraw its two Army divisions and replace them with fewer, lighter, more mobile troops....
...The two divisions in Germany are the 1st Armored and the 1st Infantry. They would be returned to the United States under the Pentagon plan although it was unclear where...
Sweet news for a guy like me that is basically isolationist.
-
Redployment on active service you know where if you ask me - makes sense though.
-
after the cold war, germany is used as a army depot, but since
the frontlines gone that far (middle east) it looks like army stations
in germany doesent pay off now. I still wonder some are still here! ;)
They discussing to move the divisions closer to the middle east, but
thats nothing really new.
-
Looks like some EU/SK defense budgets are going to have to be recalculated soon... :aok
Charon
-
it sure is refreshing to hear good news for a change. a guy could get used to news like this.
-
US is having shortage of troops there where those are needed :D
-
Here read this again:
The two divisions in Germany are the 1st Armored and the 1st Infantry. They would be returned to the United States under the Pentagon plan although it was unclear where...
Undoubtedly, they would rotate overseas along with the rest of our troops but when they went over I'm pretty sure some would be coming back in turn.
-
It's interesting that it's a reduction of long term deployments. But I guess it's doesn't make sense to reduce short term deployments as the troops are still needed.
My concern is that one might be lead to believe that the current administration is, on the whole, for reducing deployments in general.
And the numbers don't seem to back up that point-of-view.
Currently there are about 250,000 deployed active US military personel out of some 500,000 on active duty (I don't know how many of those are deployable).
More info here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
In regards to the 12,700 US soldiers that are being reployed from South Korea, the South Korean foreign minister said that 4,000 are being redeployed to Iraq.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040517/afp/040517071643asiapacificnews.html
But he could be full of ****.
In regards to the German redeployment, I would like to know exactly what "fewer" means. That story seems to be still developing.
For what it's worth, I certainly would like to see the US save treasure from these deployments and be able to spend some more funding to intelligence services and boarder security. As I believe that the first responsibility of a government is to protect the freedoms of it's citizens.
-
Hey, a trend has to start somewhere. That's what this is, a start.
I hope they put the two German divisions on the Arizona/New Mexico/Mexican border.
As for Iraq, I wouldn't be a bit suprised if all of these troops eventually spend some time in Iraq. It'd most likely be as a troop redeployment/rotation but it could just be as additional troops.
The good news there is that we KNOW they'll be leaving Iraq someday. Even the interim Iraqi government has said they will want us to clear out eventually. As it should be.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey, a trend has to start somewhere. That's what this is, a start.
Yep.
I hope they put the two German divisions on the Arizona/New Mexico/Mexican border.
I completely agree with you in principle, if not methodology. I think that illegal immigration may be a bigger threat to the US than even terrorism, if only for fact that nothing seems to be being done about it.
The good news there is that we KNOW they'll be leaving Iraq someday. Even the interim Iraqi government has said they will want us to clear out eventually. As it should be.
I was thinking the same thing. At then end of the day compare the dollar cost of what seems like it's going to be a relatively short deployment to Iraq, compared to another 50-60 years of maintainnig the current troop levels in South Korea and Germany.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I hope they put the two German divisions on the Arizona/New Mexico/Mexican border.
We invade Mexico in the Spring!
-
No, we STOP the Mexican invasion next Spring! ;)
Thrawn, it's not about dollars with me. If they were needed, I'd cheerfully pay.
I don't feel they're needed.
-
NON-PC JOKE WARNING
Originally posted by gofaster
We invade Mexico in the Spring!
Texas could do it for us and just claim ignorance.
"Hell, we thought it was vacant. Weren't nobody home but the help."
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thrawn, it's not about dollars with me. If they were needed, I'd cheerfully pay.
I don't feel they're needed.
I was being callous, but a very real concern for me is wether or not the US, as whole, can afford to pay.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Currently there are about 250,000 deployed active US military personel out of some 500,000 on active duty (I don't know how many of those are deployable).
You must be talking about the US Army, there are considerably more than 500,000 active duty US military personnel. Will look it up.
Here ya go: http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/rg0404.pdf
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
wether or not the US, as whole, can afford to pay.
Well, obviously Canada can't or won't. Guess you'll just have to trail along behind us and see how it all turns out.
Them as can, does. Them as can't, don't.
;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You must be talking about the US Army, there are considerably more than 500,000 active duty US military personnel. Will look it up.
My mistake, I saw the 500,000 thousand number not to long ago when I was looking up this very issue. Perhaps it means deployable?
Originally posted by Toad
Well, obviously Canada can't or won't.
Indeed, but one good sign is that the Conseratives are now leading the Liberals. ;)
After I made my statement about being able to afford the financial costs I thought of what should have been obvious solution to both our countries problems with funding our militaries, cut the fricken pork.
-
The biggest pork is defending those countries capable of providing for their own defense. Agree it needs to be cut.
-
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (309A) (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf)
That's as of Sept '03.
What a coincidence! The Conservatives are now leading our country too! ;)
Cut the pork? And starve the homeless politicians?
-
"The biggest pork is defending those countries capable of providing for their own defense."
Once again, that would be a start. The problem is that no-one is calling for a correlating decrease in defence spending.
We both have our sacred cows. No Canadian can win an election that says, "Cut heathcare spending.". No American can win an election that says, "Cut defence spending.".
-
The US benefits if we simply redirect the billions spent militarily on foreign shores to our own. Of course if/when we pull our troops home they will be more visible and no doubt more likely to be seen as unecessary by many. Maybe if the US eliminates it's military Canada and Mexico will step into the gap?
-
The shift of units is not what everyone is thinking. If this were the case it would not be benificial to cut troops down in Korea. This is simply a move to be able to rotate soldiers to Iraq. At the present pace of deployments the draft is sure to come. The Army has run out of units to send. They are not trying to save money by bringing these soldiers home. My old unit the 11th ACR had a saying..."We get sent after the girlscouts." Pentagon is now considering closing Ft. Irwin and sending the 11th ACR to Iraq. We are truly depleted of troops. The inactive reserves are calling up its people as we speak. Until that pool of soldiers gets depleted they cant start the draft. Is the draft a rumor? Yes it is. But they sure are taking steps in that direction.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe if the US eliminates it's military Canada and Mexico will step into the gap?
What does Mexico have do with anything, they aren't even an ally? And exactly which nation or nations is a threat to North America?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What does Mexico have do with anything, they aren't even an ally? And exactly which nation or nations is a threat to North America?
Mexico is on our border and could help you Canadians fight off a continental invasion.
We'd likely find out real quick if the US didn't have a powerful military.
-
Jamusta, any shift to "home basing" the troops is positive IMO.
I'm sure these units will do a tour in Iraq. I'm just as sure they will replace units that, in turn, will return stateside for a while.
I want them based at home and actually at home as much as possible.
***********
It isn't the Americas we have to defend, is it?
Thrawn, the point is everyone calls for the UN forces in time of crisis.
Canada can contribute max 8,000. Mexico probably none.
Point is, that without US forces involved, the UN doesn't have enough
manpower to stop... oh, say... the Serbs.
Without the US, what would the UN do if the NK's rolled South again? Answer: Not a thing; they don't have the military to oppose something like that.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Mexico is on our border and could help you Canadians fight off a continental invasion.
Yeah but the contentient invasion from who?
We'd likely find out real quick if the US didn't have a powerful military.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that's "likely". Countries have been chomping at the bit to see how they could possibly try to launch a sea bourne invasion of the second largest country in the world and work there way across it, while maintaining supply lines and occupying it.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Oh yeah, I'm sure that's "likely". Countries have been chomping at the bit to see how they could possibly try to launch a sea bourne invasion of the second largest country in the world and work there way across it, while maintaining supply lines and occupying it.
Why not? We've done it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It isn't the Americas we have to defend, is it?
Thrawn, the point is everyone calls for the UN forces in time of crisis.
...
Point is, that without US forces involved, the UN doesn't have enough
manpower to stop... oh, say... the Serbs.
Well, it depends on the level of crisis and the specific situation.
Without the US, what would the UN do if the NK's rolled South again? Answer: Not a thing; they don't have the military to oppose something like that.
It depends on the desire of and which countries are opposing it. But granted, it certainly makes possibility of meeting some crises much more feasible, (and in some cases viable, period!) if the US is on board.
But let's not mistake ability to intervene in a crisis to mean the desire to. Desire not to participte (or participate meaninfully) doesn't exist some nebulous body called "The United Nations", but within the member states themselves. And every memberstate has express this desire at somepoint, Rwanada being the classic, and one of the most tragic examples.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Why not? We've done it.
No you didn't and it was a much different situation. If you mean "could do it". If any nation in the world could, it would be the US. But we were talking about contiental invasion.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Why not? We've done it.
Not by yourselves you haven't.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well, it depends on the level of crisis and the specific situation.
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.
I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.
Now name another one.
Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.
I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.
Now name another one.
Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.
If you removed the 25 percent or so US funding of the UN then you can pretty much eliminate all of them.
-
I highly doubt its as optmistic as you believe it is Toad, I'm more inclined to believe Jamusta has it right.
If it were for the sake of securing our borders, they'd have been home two years ago.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.
I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.
Now name another one.
Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.
US was not in Cypress when it blew up in the early 70s.
-
IIRC, the UN had a ceasefire in place and it was holding before UN troops went.
Or are you saying the UN troops went into a "hot" shooting war and had to engage like in Korea in the 50's?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.
Toad, this has been a "relatively" agreeable discusion. Up to the point you wish me to quantify a "relatively" large scale UN operation.
I wouldn't assume to imagine that we have understood scale, seeing as our last discussion on such matters lead to a less than satisfactory (but appartently mutually agreeable) solution, using US dollar costs.
-
Thrawn, if you step back you'll realize you are arguing a lost point.
The UN cannot mount a major military operation without US participation. Period.
Now, things can go along quite nicely without us if only "peacekeeping" operations are required in places that have basically a "small arms" situation/problem.
However, using Kuwait as the most recent example of something outside of a "small arms situation", it's clear that removing a mechanized aggressor from an invaded country cannot be done without US participation.
A Korean scenario would be far worse than Kuwait.
The UN can handle "small arms" without us. The world might stumble along just fine for a while but eventually some loony-toon would get the idea that there's no one to stop him. He'd be right, of course. And then the party would be on again all around the world.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
We invade Mexico in the Spring!
*hijack*
That part in "The Day After" where you can see Americans running across the Mexican border was pretty funny :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN cannot mount a major military operation without US participation. Period.
Once again, it depends on specific coutries that support it and their commitment.
It seems to me your saying that combined deployable military forces of the entire world, minus the US, can't win a war against a given country. And I don't believe that's true.