| |
Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by Acidus at 12:51 pm EDT, Aug 16, 2004 |
] Bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel
] would move from overseas to posts in the United States
] over the next decade.
]
] "Our service members will have more time on the home
] front," Bush said, outlining his plans in a speech before
] a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
]
] Bush said it makes no sense to continue an armed posture
] that was forged during the cold war, when the Soviet
] Union represented the nation's biggest threat. Terrorism,
] he said, is now the chief threat.
]
] He said the plan had been in the works for three years,
] and U.S. allies and Congress were consulted on it.
]
] The nation's commander in chief predicted the plan would
] result in stronger alliances and reduce the stress on
] U.S. troops and their families.
] ]
] Democrats criticized the move. In a statement released by
] the Democratic National Committee, retired Gen. Wesley
] Clark, a former presidential candidate, said the
] redeployment from Europe and Asia would "significantly
] undermine U.S. national security."
]
] "This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically
] motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national
] security," Clark said. This is full of so many contradictions, I don't know where to start. Someone explain to me how removing most of the 119,000 troops from NATO bases in Europe will result in "stronger alliances?" Don't we have senators fighting each other every year over military base closures, because they cause such economic drain? I bet the Germans are just going to love flying a battalion of troops to New Mexico for wargames. Now I'm not saying in this modern world we need 119,000 troops in Europe, but to claim this is anything other than a political move is total crap. Further, what will these troops be used for? Because it makes "no sense" to keep them in Europe now that the Cold is over, and we must bring them to the US to fight the "chief threat," Terrorism. Again, complete bullshit! I challenge someone to defend how grunt from the infantry is going to fight terrorsim. He isn't crunching intelligence data! Further, he is completely restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act from acting in any type of law enforcement capacity. So, yes, after a city is attacked, these troops, can, after a freaking act of Congress, help pick up the bodies. This is shamefully political. |
| |
RE: Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by Decius at 7:10 pm EDT, Aug 16, 2004 |
Acidus wrote:
] This is full of so many contradictions, I don't know where to
] start. Someone explain to me how removing most of the 119,000
] troops from NATO bases in Europe will result in "stronger
] alliances? I can't. It might be effective in some asian locations where US troop deployments are resented, but not in Europe. ] Again, complete bullshit! I challenge someone to defend how
] grunt from the infantry is going to fight terrorsim. He isn't. The point is that the money spent on running these deployments can be repurposed. However, I agree that the timing of this move seems political. Tom |
|
| | |
RE: Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by Acidus at 7:18 pm EDT, Aug 16, 2004 |
Decius wrote:
] Acidus wrote:
] ] This is full of so many contradictions, I don't know where
] to
] ] start. Someone explain to me how removing most of the
] 119,000
] ] troops from NATO bases in Europe will result in "stronger
] ] alliances?
]
] I can't. It might be effective in some asian locations where
] US troop deployments are resented, but not in Europe.
]
] ] Again, complete bullshit! I challenge someone to defend how
] ] grunt from the infantry is going to fight terrorsim.
]
] He isn't. The point is that the money spent on running these
] deployments can be repurposed. Thats my point. You and I know its about money, and frankly I agree with the money saving. But he never, (in the reports I've seen) said he is doing this to save money. He is selling it as creating "stronger alliances" and to ease the stress on troops, which is complete bullshit, and so people assume it must be politcal |
|
Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by k at 2:31 pm EDT, Aug 16, 2004 |
This is shamefully political. [ I have slightly mixed feelings. I don't for a second think that this hasn't got a major political aspect, but I don't see it as completely so. It really does seem like our overseas deployments are organized around a cold war threat model which is obsolete. I have no problem with them acting to reorganize into a more sensible configuration... wether they're actually *going to* do that remains to be seen, and of course, the timing of this announcement is pretty clearly meant to take up a few news cycles right in front of the RNC. I.e. i think the basic concept is sound, but the rhetoric and timing surrounding it are, as you say, "shamefully political." -k] |
| |
RE: Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by Acidus at 3:08 pm EDT, Aug 16, 2004 |
] I.e. i think the basic concept is sound, but the rhetoric and
] timing surrounding it are, as you say, "shamefully political."
] -k] That's the crux of it. Are that many troops in Europe unnecessary in the post-cold war world? Yes. Will it help you cut military costs, and channel more resources to Iraq/Afghanistan? Yes. So focus on that, and not this better alliances/protects against terrorism crap. Don't piss in my face and tell me it raining. |
|
| | |
RE: Bush: Moving Troops home to fight terrorism?
by Catonic at 2:51 am EDT, Aug 18, 2004 |
Acidus wrote:
] ] I.e. i think the basic concept is sound, but the rhetoric
] and
] ] timing surrounding it are, as you say, "shamefully
] political."
] ] -k]
]
] That's the crux of it. Are that many troops in Europe
] unnecessary in the post-cold war world? Yes. Will it help you
] cut military costs, and channel more resources to
] Iraq/Afghanistan? Yes. So focus on that, and not this better
] alliances/protects against terrorism crap.
]
] Don't piss in my face and tell me it raining. how much longer until posse comitatus exists no more and the army roams freely in the states? |
|
|
|
