I was for pulling troops out of Europe

[MoFunk]

Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004 10:07 a.m. EDT

Kerry Backed Korea, Europe Troop Reductions Three Weeks Ago

Sen. John Kerry is blasting President Bush for his plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from South Korea and Germany. But less than three weeks ago the top Democrat said he thought such troop reductions were a good idea, specifically naming Europe and Korea.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.

"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/19/100848.shtml



Redeploying forces where needed


By Donald Lambro

President Bush's decision to withdraw 70,000 troops from Western Europe and South Korea dealt several strategic blows to Sen. John Kerry's candidacy this week.
First, it effectively undercut Mr. Kerry's charge Mr. Bush was a war-happy president bent on sending U.S. troops hither and yon around the globe, stretching our fighting forces to the breaking point. The president's action also drew a sharp contrast to Mr. Kerry's dangerous pledge to withdraw U.S. military forces from Iraq within six months of taking office without any idea how this would embolden the terrorists.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040818-091727-2323r.htm

I am posting this knowing that I will be called a neocon and will be told that these sites are not part of the "trusted" sources of the left.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004 10:07 a.m. EDT

Kerry Backed Korea, Europe Troop Reductions Three Weeks Ago

Sen. John Kerry is blasting President Bush for his plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from South Korea and Germany. But less than three weeks ago the top Democrat said he thought such troop reductions were a good idea, specifically naming Europe and Korea.

"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry told ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 1.

"I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/19/100848.shtml



Redeploying forces where needed


By Donald Lambro

President Bush's decision to withdraw 70,000 troops from Western Europe and South Korea dealt several strategic blows to Sen. John Kerry's candidacy this week.
First, it effectively undercut Mr. Kerry's charge Mr. Bush was a war-happy president bent on sending U.S. troops hither and yon around the globe, stretching our fighting forces to the breaking point. The president's action also drew a sharp contrast to Mr. Kerry's dangerous pledge to withdraw U.S. military forces from Iraq within six months of taking office without any idea how this would embolden the terrorists.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040818-091727-2323r.htm

I am posting this knowing that I will be called a neocon and will be told that these sites are not part of the "trusted" sources of the left.

Well, considering the criminality around the bases committed by Americans, i am all for getting the scum out.

The scum being those who have intolerable behaviour, not ALL US solders, but if ALL have to go to get rid of that, good riddance.

 

[Todd33]

Kerry never said he was against it, he said the timing is bad. Norman Schwartzkof (sp?) agreed with respect to S. Korea. Just as we are putting pressure on them to disarm we announce a reduction in troop strength in the DMZ. It's an election year ploy to get back some of his loss military vote.

 

[conjur]

And the troop reductions from South Korea before were on the order of a couple thousand...not 70,000.

 

[dmcowen674]

I love the desperation of the re-pugs.

Kerry isn't even in yet until January and they're attacking his delivery.

You'd think Dubya was a great Orator or something , hahahahaaa

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I thought Bush was talking about redeployment . . . not necessarily bringing the troops "home".

Troops for S. Korea, Germany, Japan being shunted towards "new Europe" and possibly a TBA base in the Middle East *cough* Iraq *cough* . . . isn't the same as Bush's claim that he's bringing the troops home.

Further, the current operational tempo (excessive regardless of who you ask) isn't going to change any time soon since the operational tempo has largely been a function of PNAC wet dreams . . . not the pre-9/11 distribution of US troop deployments.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I thought Bush was talking about redeployment . . . not necessarily bringing the troops "home".

Troops for S. Korea, Germany, Japan being shunted towards "new Europe" and possibly a TBA base in the Middle East *cough* Iraq *cough* . . . isn't the same as Bush's claim that he's bringing the troops home.

Further, the current operational tempo (excessive regardless of who you ask) isn't going to change any time soon since the operational tempo has largely been a function of PNAC wet dreams . . . not the pre-9/11 distribution of US troop deployments.

Makes sense, they promised Poland among others some good deals to participate in Iraq so.

What will troops in Poland do? nothing of course, that is not the point. The point is removing them as "punishment" and deploying them as reward, kinda like in the sandbox, agree and you get to play with my toys, disagree and i will take them away and give them to someone who will agree.

It is pathetic and childish and it is the Bush policy.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
What will troops in Poland do? nothing of course, that is not the point. The

You might want to read up a little on military history... particularly how and why Poland was invaded in many European conflicts.

 

[ntdz]

yet another kerry flip flop. First he says hed remove troops from korea and europe "perhaps". Then Bush announces he will pull troops from korea and germany and Kerry is talking about how its the worst time to remove troops from Korea. Unbelievable, does this guy have ANY opinions of his own or does he just oppose everything Bush does or do everything he thinks will be politically expedient. This guy is a scum bag.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's really going to devastate a lot of those countries, especially Germany. But I think it might be for the best to remove them from Western Europe.

I think they're thinking about putting a NMD base in Poland or somewhere else in Eastern Europe.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would be alright with a repositioning of troops, but I think we should still have a presence in Germany. It would probaby make many people feel safer with a US military presence there.

What's Germany's position on this? I've read some about some German authorities going to Washington to try to keep the US in Germany as well as some mayor of a German town that 'loved' the US troops. Not sure what the official position is though...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would be alright with a repositioning of troops, but I think we should still have a presence in Germany. It would probaby make many people feel safer with a US military presence there.

What's Germany's position on this? I've read some about some German authorities going to Washington to try to keep the US in Germany as well as some mayor of a German town that 'loved' the US troops. Not sure what the official position is though...

I think it's an apples and oranges issue. IMO, Germans have a great affinity for US troops. Koreans . . . don't . . . particularly Gen X. If we are doing nothing more than shuffling troops from Germany to the European backwater of Poland or Bulgaria . . . that's just plain stupid.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would be alright with a repositioning of troops, but I think we should still have a presence in Germany. It would probaby make many people feel safer with a US military presence there.

What's Germany's position on this? I've read some about some German authorities going to Washington to try to keep the US in Germany as well as some mayor of a German town that 'loved' the US troops. Not sure what the official position is though...

I think it's an apples and oranges issue. IMO, Germans have a great affinity for US troops. Koreans . . . don't . . . particularly Gen X. If we are doing nothing more than shuffling troops from Germany to the European backwater of Poland or Bulgaria . . . that's just plain stupid.

I thought that the Korean leaders were actually for keeping the US troops. I don't think that they really are going to care what a bunch of teenagers are thinking during their angst years.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would be alright with a repositioning of troops, but I think we should still have a presence in Germany. It would probaby make many people feel safer with a US military presence there.

What's Germany's position on this? I've read some about some German authorities going to Washington to try to keep the US in Germany as well as some mayor of a German town that 'loved' the US troops. Not sure what the official position is though...

I think it's an apples and oranges issue. IMO, Germans have a great affinity for US troops. Koreans . . . don't . . . particularly Gen X. If we are doing nothing more than shuffling troops from Germany to the European backwater of Poland or Bulgaria . . . that's just plain stupid.

I thought that the Korean leaders were actually for keeping the US troops. I don't think that they really are going to care what a bunch of teenagers are thinking during their angst years.

OK technically most teens are Gen Y. Anyway, "knowledgeable" South Koreans realize the US government is subsidizing Korean security to the tune of $11B or so a year. Leadership is well aware of this fact. Further, old school Koreans don't trust the hellspawn of Kim Il Sung . . . for good reason. But much like Abu Ghraib, the rapes and hit/run issues have not gone over very well in a country with arguably the worst SOFA aside from Iraq/Afghanistan.

The issues on the Korean peninsula are fundamentally different from Europe. Unfortunately, Bush's political handlers don't care and Bush is a moron. Granted, I'm less than convinced Kerry knows what to do with Korea either but I would wager he's got a clue based on his use of "perhaps" in describing potential troop realignments. Then again, maybe he's just a waffler . . .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
And the troop reductions from South Korea before were on the order of a couple thousand...not 70,000.

You would have to remove all of our troops stationed in SK twice to reach 70k.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Kerry never said he was against it, he said the timing is bad

HAHAHA yea..bad for Kerry!!

How come nobody is asking why Kerry is upset about the trrop withdrawal from Korea now?

I've got news for you, President Bush never stated that he was pulling 12,000 troops out of Korea in his speech the other day.....

he never said that...so where did Kerry come up with the number?

well, the 12,000 troop reduction has been known about since at least May, 2004, and Kerry probably knew about it all the way back in June, 2003..

linky

Kerry is just blustering about this now for pure political purposes (oh! I'm shocked..so unexpected)

don't worry, this Kerry "talking point" won't even last through the weekend...

Kerry is going to be trying to figure out how to keep 35 years of lies about Vietnam from unraveling.....The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are now gaining traction in the "liberal" media...

He's gonna squirm now...

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I would be alright with a repositioning of troops, but I think we should still have a presence in Germany. It would probaby make many people feel safer with a US military presence there.

Yes, I've heard the same from a number of allied officers in NATO. Actually in the post-Cold War era though, one should really compare the situation more to a relationship rather than a watchdog.

What's Germany's position on this? I've read some about some German authorities going to Washington to try to keep the US in Germany as well as some mayor of a German town that 'loved' the US troops. Not sure what the official position is though...

Lot's of folks are understandably upset. Over the years, many Germans invested their lives into careers supporting the U.S. military. In fact, both the Army and Air Force have a lot invested in German local nationals. For example, while U.S. civilians supporting the military occasionally attended DoD-sponsored schools and courses in the states, German civilians sometimes sat in class alongside their American counterparts.

I've also read that various German officials personally lobbied Washington on this issue. During the mid-80s, USAREUR and USAFE collectively accounted for about 4-6% of the German GNP. Currently, the number should hover around 1-3% because of various factors (reunification, fewer troops, exchange rate, contracts, etc.), as well as which economist one is inclined to believe.

Yes, I can believe the mayor saying his town 'loved' US troops. Most of the Germans close to the bases, although a bit reserved, are essentially good people. However, the smart GI usually finds the friendliest about 50 km away from the base. Those Germans haven't put up with G.I. BS since the mid-40s!

Many other Germans told me over the years that Americans aren't Ausländer or foreigners. During the Cold War, the relationship was very close and, to a lesser extent, still is.

Out of my ten years there, I lived for two years as a bachelor in Herborn-Seelbach and another two years in Wahlbach just south of Siegen. Those years, to me, undoubtedly remain the most special time of my life. :beer::heart:. Man, the parties, friendships and fellowship are almost beyond description.

 

[umbrella39]

HS :roll: Get over your wet dream sharing. Your guy is stale bread and Kerry is the toaster. And Don Vito was correct, you certainly don't communicate your points like an educated brain surgeon. LMAO.

As much as you wish the majority of the country believed the SwiftboatLiars fabrications, it ain't happening. Some will and have bought the lies, thanks to usless humans such as Hanity and Rush, but got a news flash for ya, NOT ENOUGH. The economy is the big ticket item this season and your boy has done squat in regards to it. So, that said, enjoy trolling for at least 4 years for fish. Your bait is about as effective as your champions policies.

Next...

 

[RabidMongoose]

I've also read that various German officials personally lobbied Washington on this issue. During the mid-80s, USAREUR and USAFE collectively accounted for about 4-6% of the German GNP. Currently, the number should hover around 1-3% because of various factors (reunification, fewer troops, exchange rate, contracts, etc.), as well as which economist one is inclined to believe.

Wow, 1-3%? No wonder they don't want the US to pull out. Isn't the German economy not doing so well anyways? Can't imagine how tough it would be to take out even 1% of an economy. Are you sure those numbers are right?

Anyways, the US should do whatever it can to become more cost efficient. If that means pulling out of Germany, then so be it. Maybe the US can set up a smaller representative force there.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I've also read that various German officials personally lobbied Washington on this issue. During the mid-80s, USAREUR and USAFE collectively accounted for about 4-6% of the German GNP. Currently, the number should hover around 1-3% because of various factors (reunification, fewer troops, exchange rate, contracts, etc.), as well as which economist one is inclined to believe.

Wow, 1-3%? No wonder they don't want the US to pull out. Isn't the German economy not doing so well anyways? Can't imagine how tough it would be to take out even 1% of an economy. Are you sure those numbers are right?

Anyways, the US should do whatever it can to become more cost efficient. If that means pulling out of Germany, then so be it. Maybe the US can set up a smaller representative force there.

It's getting better, we are not living on borrowed money though, like some naions, but we do need an influx of business or we will sink even lower while not spending any more.

You see some nations don't have this problem, they keep spending, we are somewhat more responsible so we will strain through it and it will be ok, we also have demands from the EU council to live up to so.

That is just the beginning of it, i could explain it all to you but it would take a whole lot of time and words.

I, as a NATO officer myself am not happy to see this happen, but we saw it coming a long time ago and we are prepared, the hit will not be anywhere near 1-3 more likely 0.01-0.03.

And considering the amount of police tours around the bases, probably closer to 0-.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I've also read that various German officials personally lobbied Washington on this issue. During the mid-80s, USAREUR and USAFE collectively accounted for about 4-6% of the German GNP. Currently, the number should hover around 1-3% because of various factors (reunification, fewer troops, exchange rate, contracts, etc.), as well as which economist one is inclined to believe.

Wow, 1-3%? No wonder they don't want the US to pull out. Isn't the German economy not doing so well anyways? Can't imagine how tough it would be to take out even 1% of an economy. Are you sure those numbers are right?

Anyways, the US should do whatever it can to become more cost efficient. If that means pulling out of Germany, then so be it. Maybe the US can set up a smaller representative force there.

It's getting better, we are not living on borrowed money though, like some naions, but we do need an influx of business or we will sink even lower while not spending any more.

You see some nations don't have this problem, they keep spending, we are somewhat more responsible so we will strain through it and it will be ok, we also have demands from the EU council to live up to so.

That is just the beginning of it, i could explain it all to you but it would take a whole lot of time and words.

I, as a NATO officer myself am not happy to see this happen, but we saw it coming a long time ago and we are prepared, the hit will not be anywhere near 1-3 more likely 0.01-0.03.

And considering the amount of police tours around the bases, probably closer to 0-.

Our Google educated thug is now an expert economist.

 

[RabidMongoose]

1-3% and .01-.03% is a pretty big difference. I think it would be much bigger than .01%. Any hit to an already struggling economy will hurt a lot. No wonder the Germans want the US to stay.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
1-3% and .01-.03% is a pretty big difference. I think it would be much bigger than .01%. Any hit to an already struggling economy will hurt a lot. No wonder the Germans want the US to stay.

No, see, you don't understand this, these are foreign soldiers and they are contributing a very small amount.

The contributions to the NATO countries have not been lowered as of yet. That means that we basically get around 1-3% in external contributions which will mean that we have 0.01-0.03% less in total.

We do have a national industry and at the rate we are producing fords, Audis, VW's and other things we are well on our way to recover while the us is still struggling with their debts.

Analysts agree on this, europe is on the positive side while the US is loosing more and more money.

You can only continue a negative trade balance for a limitied amount of time.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
1-3% and .01-.03% is a pretty big difference. I think it would be much bigger than .01%. Any hit to an already struggling economy will hurt a lot. No wonder the Germans want the US to stay.

No, see, you don't understand this, these are foreign soldiers and they are contributing a very small amount.

The contributions to the NATO countries have not been lowered as of yet. That means that we basically get around 1-3% in external contributions which will mean that we have 0.01-0.03% less in total.

We do have a national industry and at the rate we are producing fords, Audis, VW's and other things we are well on our way to recover while the us is still struggling with their debts.

Analysts agree on this, europe is on the positive side while the US is loosing more and more money.

You can only continue a negative trade balance for a limitied amount of time.

No, I think they contribute a significant amount to the Germany economy. I just read about the Phillipines and the US military presence there sinks in 3% of their GNP! There is a reason why so many German officials don't want the US to pull out. Even the media there has widespread sentiment in Germany seems to keep them.

I can't blame them. When you have massively struggling economy, an apparently poor future, and the burden of wasting trillions of dollars on Eastern Germany and a shrinking population, then this would be another nail in the coffin. A lot of Germans probably also don't trust their own leaders. God knows what the hell these people will do next.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
1-3% and .01-.03% is a pretty big difference. I think it would be much bigger than .01%. Any hit to an already struggling economy will hurt a lot. No wonder the Germans want the US to stay.

No, see, you don't understand this, these are foreign soldiers and they are contributing a very small amount.

The contributions to the NATO countries have not been lowered as of yet. That means that we basically get around 1-3% in external contributions which will mean that we have 0.01-0.03% less in total.

We do have a national industry and at the rate we are producing fords, Audis, VW's and other things we are well on our way to recover while the us is still struggling with their debts.

Analysts agree on this, europe is on the positive side while the US is loosing more and more money.

You can only continue a negative trade balance for a limitied amount of time.

No, I think they contribute a significant amount to the Germany economy. I just read about the Phillipines and the US military presence there sinks in 3% of their GNP! There is a reason why so many German officials don't want the US to pull out. Even the media there has widespread sentiment in Germany seems to keep them.

I can't blame them. When you have massively struggling economy, an apparently poor future, and the burden of wasting trillions of dollars on Eastern Germany and a shrinking population, then this would be another nail in the coffin. A lot of Germans probably also don't trust their own leaders. God knows what the hell these people will do next.

The phillipines are comparable to Germany? Surely you are joking?

Read my post again, Germany are doing much better than before, if we could just get rid of the vast amount of crime around the bases (a hint is 60-85% of all crimes commited by foreign soldiers around bases.) we could be golden.

The german leaders are directly elected (not some fubared system that lets the candidate who has less population votes win) and we have confidence in them for a reason.