Troop Plan Vague on Movements in Asia

[Skankster]

-
-

Troop Plan Vague on Movements in Asia
Voice of America - 2 hours ago
President Bush's plan to withdraw up to 70,000 troops from overseas bases contained few specifics, particularly about Asia. Some experts think the United States may leave much of its Asia force intact.

Hahaha- No Airport for Ishihara!! da bitch! :P

[Faded]

"Japan welcomes the review of the U.S. military framework that will better suit the global security environment and further contribute to peace and stability," the Japanese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Japanese officials believe the latest decision will bring no major changes to U.S. forces in Japan, including the number of troops, a Defense Agency official said on condition of anonymity.

-AP

In other words, "We're just pulling out of Germany to teach them a lesson". Actually a good military strategy though, and one that they've talked about for years.

We're cool wit dat

[Skankster]

-
-

"pulling out of Germany to teach them a lesson"

That crap just teaches me that G-W-Bush is a cunt faggot with a chip on his shoulder.

[Faded]

it was a joke But hey, if that was the true thought process, it would be an interesting turn in international politics (I"m taking my ball and going home). BUT, the moves had been in the planning stage since 2001, even before the nasty 9/11 stuff.

and how that could make him a "faggot" I'm not entirely sure. Vindictive, sure, devious, of course, but gay?

[Skankster]

-
-
well just a little faded... uh, I mean jaded!

[Socratesabroad]

Ishihara!! da bitch!
G-W-Bush is a cunt faggot with a chip on his shoulder.

I would ask where you gleaned such inciteful political analysis, but I think I can guess on my own, if only I could remember more of what was said in the high school boys' lockerroom...

[devicenull]

eh, might as well pull em out of europe. the cold war is over. and as for east asian forces, the only credible threat is china, and i seriously doubt we will have a confrontation unless we do something stupid like attack north korea or defend taiwan for some reason.

for some odd reason, i think the korea problem will resolve itself eventually. the US putting any troops closer to the chinese border will provoke some sort of retalliation. the last thing china will put up with is US troops on her borders

[GuyJean]

Not sure about this one; Europe pullout, yes. South Korea? What happened to the Bush axis of evil speech? Did he.. (gasp, no way) 'flip-flop'?

NK has nuclear missiles, Iran is going to have nuclear missiles, and Iraq probably thought about having nuclear missiles at some point in time. I guess we went into Iraq to teach the other two points of the evil triangle a lesson.. Get em' shakin' in their boots at the thought of another 'successful' invasion like Iraq. Make em' beg for mercy so they fess up to all the evil they've been spreading and convert to Christianity.. So, I guess we've 'accomplished' our 'mission'. Let's go home.

In the next 10 years, look for:

A: The US to sell Japan the 'Carlyle Missile Shield'
B: Japan to introduce the nukes they're hiding
C: Or both

I'm not sure if removing the troops in Asia is such a great idea; If they ever have to come back, it's going to look more like a 'build-up' than a 'transfer'. China's only going to get more influencial, more territorial, and more offended by any US 'build-up' in their region.

Interesting how this 'movement' was conceived 3 years ago, announced 2 month's before election, and to take affect over the next 10 years.. I think jorj is gonna need those 70,000 votes.

GJ

[Blah Pete]

Why does the US still have 70,000 troops in Germany?
They should have enough only for NATO comitments.

[Faded]

-
-
well just a little faded... uh, I mean jaded!

If that's all you got, don't even bother whipping it out.

As for the rest of it, the missile defense system is a given to be sold to Japan (US has even conned Australia into getting into it). I don't think Japan will be "hosting" any Nukes though, Now S. Korea, I'm sure is hiding quite a few. Perhaps even Taiwan too.

Germany was a real strategic placement during the Cold War, but with that over, there is truly no real need there. With moving bases into the Warsaw Pact countries (I.E. Romania), and keeping an Air Force in Turkey, the majority of the security needs in Europe are covered. Besides, how many tanks did we really need in Germany??

With the eventual base in Afganistan (you know it's coming), and the ones practically already in place in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the US would have a good enough presence there.

In Asia, there are plenty of places for the US to place troops while still staying off of China's fence (Phillipines, Japan, Australia). Shifting the forces in S. Korea away from the DMZ has been in discussion for a few years that I know of, but the majority are still remaining in S. Korea. Besides not much need to have all those troops right on the edge, when you can just as easily lob missiles anywhere in the country.

I agree that the Korea situation will work itself out. The regions that might spark anything would be Africa and China/tawain (despite US's official non policy). The most interesting one would be if India and Pakistan ever came to blows. Between Pakistan being our "terrorist fighting buddy" and all the companies invested in India these days, I'm not sure who the US would side with. That and the fact that they both have nukes.

That or the Martians finally come down and decide to reclaim us.

[GuyJean]

I don't think Japan will be "hosting" any Nukes though, Now S. Korea, I'm sure is hiding quite a few. Perhaps even Taiwan too.

You're probably right, but I'm still curious what Japan does with all it's nuclear waste from it's power production. Seeing as there is practically.. no, check that.. literally no oversight in this country, I find it hard to believe the scientifically inquisitive in this country haven't delved into a little nuke bomb experimentation now and then.

Shifting the forces in S. Korea away from the DMZ has been in discussion for a few years that I know of, but the majority are still remaining in S. Korea.

True. I believe SK has plans to move the capital further south as well.

Besides not much need to have all those troops right on the edge, when you can just as easily lob missiles anywhere in the country.

I see your point, but those troops on the edge could also act as a deterrent; Lob a missile at a US base, then have to deal nuclear annihilation.

My concern is more with the removal of 'the big kid on the block'. Similar the power vacuum that occured after the Soviet Union broke up. No all out war, but smaller skirmishes breaking out here and there.

I think if they replaced the troops with some sort of 'Human Intelligence Recruiting Center' that trained spies in language, culture, and technology would be the best and coolest solution.

GJ

[Skankster]

-
-
well just a little faded... uh, I mean jaded!

If that's all you got, don't even bother whipping it out.

How am I supposed to respond to a "Joke" :P

[Faded]

Published in this month's Playboy...

Excerpts from "Rebuilding America's Defenses" a think -tank report released 2 months before the 2000 elections by the Project for the New American Century. PNAC members included - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Jeb Bush.

-Raise Defense spending to 3.8% of GDP (done)
-renounce ABM treaties (done)
- Reassess nuclear weapons for bunker busting (trying to be done)
- Increase U.S. Military presence in Middle East, Central Asia, South America and the Black Sea (hmmm troop movements???)

still to come...
1) Retain "forward-based forces" in the Gulf.
2) Focus on Iran. (Iraq being the justification) Iran is considered an equal threat.
3) Unite Korea (whoa )
4) Make Outer Space a "key theater of war" and establish "U.S. Space Forces" with "the mission of space control." (told you the martians were coming)
5) Control Cyberspace (what do they mean "control"?)
6) Build Navy and Air Force Bases in Southeast Asia.

Sorry can't provide a link, am copying it out of the Magazine. (luckily just got it, else the pages might have gotten...messed up). Can't vouch for the veracity of the excerpts or what might have been deleted out (Playboy isn't exactly Republican friendly), put does paint an interesting picture to current events, especially the troop movements.

I think if they replaced the troops with some sort of 'Human Intelligence Recruiting Center' that trained spies in language, culture, and technology would be the best and coolest solution.
GJ

One flaw in that.... "HUMAN INTELLIGENCE Recruiting Center" Anyone with a high enough intelligence probably wouldn't want to be associated with them. But yeah, I see the future of warfare going more into the Intelligence "special OPs" and Black Bag operations then the all out battle fields.

How am I supposed to respond to a "Joke"

well saying something funny or at least interesting usually works. (oh yeah and "suggesting that I maybe gay, doesn't pass for much of an insult, Get AK to show you how it's done properly)

[GuyJean]

PNAC members included - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Jeb Bush.

I hope they have some more 'moderate' members somewhere..

If the strategy for Iraq is any indication of how these people make 'plans', I don't hold much hope for P-NAC's future. Implementing an idea usually takes understanding and support from anyone affected. Unless the affected are blind followers...

GJ

[devicenull]

here's the fucked up think about these "mini nukes" for bunker busting. the reason why nukes can be used and not contaminate EVERYTHING with fallout is because they are airbursts. once you go with a ground detonation you get shitloads of fallout. no matter how fast your missile is going, the deepest it will get is twice it's bodylength... a nuke wont get that far, maybe 1xbody length depth. then it blows up. ground tests were buried thousands of feet to contain the fallout. "bunker busters" are going to be about 20-30 feet underground at the most before they go off. and even then, the odds they will destroy a bunker hundreds of feet down and reinforced... is pretty much next to nothing. this is a stupid weapon that makes fallout, both literally and politically.