Bring the Boys (and Girls) Back Home!

Well it is about time somebody says it. The time for the Marshall plan and related treaties is passed! Other then a token bases on the shores of the UK, Italy, Diego Garcia and Cuba, it is time to pull our troops out of every foreign country. Except, where there are still open hostilities such as Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

This would allow US bases to remain open/ re-open and would lower our overall military costs without jeopardizing our borders.

Further, this would lower anxiety around the world and foster either national pride or capitulation among nations that do not want to provide for their own defense.

in the era of an ever spiraling out of control budget we must make cuts where possible. End our NATO and UN contributions and allow others the freedom to assume their place in history.

Due to the nature of their surrender, Japan is the only foriegn nation we are obliged to. Lets get the boys home(other than Iraq/Afghanistan) we the people can save a whole lotta dough, and the boys can help revive our economy due to reopening/expansion of bases here at home. Amen.

Except this is not really desirable, because a large standing army on home soil would make a lot of people very antsy. I don't know the specifics surrounding this issue, but isn't this even illegal?

Also, it is not a matter of protection, it is also a matter of strategic importance.
In the event of SHTF, foreign bases are of crucial importance because they allow armies to deploy rapidly.
So unless you propose never to involve yourself again with the rest of the world in a military fashion, 'bringing the boys home' is not an option.

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

The US military is meant for foreign actions ONLY. That's the whole point of foreign bases. There is no point in deploying them at home. They wouldn't have anything to do. So they'd have to be fired en masse. Not sure that would do the economy a whole lot of good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except this is not really desirable, because a large standing army on home soil would make a lot of people very antsy. I don't know the specifics surrounding this issue, but isn't this even illegal?

Also, it is not a matter of protection, it is also a matter of strategic importance.
In the event of SHTF, foreign bases are of crucial importance because they allow armies to deploy rapidly.
So unless you propose never to involve yourself again with the rest of the world in a military fashion, 'bringing the boys home' is not an option.

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

The US military is meant for foreign actions ONLY. That's the whole point of foreign bases. There is no point in deploying them at home. They wouldn't have anything to do. So they'd have to be fired en masse. Not sure that would do the economy a whole lot of good.

---

:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao Forgive me Bruno but I think this is the sort of posts Jim was fishing for! Tells us a lot!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

allow others the freedom to assume their place in history.

---

I like that. Very eloquently put.

Just out of interest, no offence is meant, do many Americans realise that there are other countries such as the UK fighting in places like Afganistan?
The reason I say this is because my family members in Canada often send 'pass it on ' emails in support of Canadian & American troops with no mention of the UK contribution.The UK death toll in Afganistan passed the 150 mark a while ago. I know it is small in comparison with the USA but we are a very small country.
I'd like to see the American troops remain here in the UK and Europe. On a lighter note perhaps you could repatriate some of your less honest bankers and a few of ours as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao Forgive me Bruno but I think this is the sort of posts Jim was fishing for! Tells us a lot!!

---

I think I must have missed something (either your or jim's intention) because I have no clue what you mean.
EDIT: could I perhaps interest you in taking back a couple of US CEOs and board members?
They could really boost the US economy, based on the fact that they are so good that they needed huge reward bonuses recently. :w
We'd even pay for shipping. (in a freight container)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I think I must have missed something (either your or jim's intention) because I have no clue what you mean.
EDIT: could I perhaps interest you in taking back a couple of US CEOs and board members?
They could really boost the US economy, based on the fact that they are so good that they needed huge reward bonuses recently. :w
We'd even pay for shipping. (in a freight container)

---

No. We're almost even for you guys allowing Stella Artois to be sold to the rest of the world as "Belgian" beer. You're getting AIG's management team in a large fedex envelope next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

The US military is meant for foreign actions ONLY. That's the whole point of foreign bases. There is no point in deploying them at home. They wouldn't have anything to do. So they'd have to be fired en masse. Not sure that would do the economy a whole lot of good.

---

It would be nice the US military could help enforce the US borders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It would be nice the US military could help enforce the US borders

---

iirc, deploying the military inside of our borders, short of martial law or a national emergency being declared, is completely illegal.

in other news, i'm in favor of keeping our troops deployed, and spending as much as possible on defense :) gotta work hard and stay on that bleeding edge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sicboater

You're getting AIG's management team in a large fedex envelope next week.

---

No no no ... you have to keep their hands free, so they can man the oars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshwizard

Just out of interest, no offence is meant, do many Americans realise that there are other countries such as the UK fighting in places like Afganistan?
The reason I say this is because my family members in Canada often send 'pass it on ' emails in support of Canadian & American troops with no mention of the UK contribution.The UK death toll in Afganistan passed the 150 mark a while ago. I know it is small in comparison with the USA but we are a very small country.
I'd like to see the American troops remain here in the UK and Europe. On a lighter note perhaps you could repatriate some of your less honest bankers and a few of ours as well.

---

I, for one, am very aware of the contribution of the UK troops. I'm very appreciative of their sacrifices and wish them all the best. :rock:

Jordan

I made no reference to deploying US troops within out borders as they are not allowed to engage the civilian population. But we most certainly may have bases here in the USA. In fact they are often used in times of natural disasters. Military personnel often sandbag levees and dikes but they do not perform "police type activities, that is reserved for the police and national guard.

The concept of having pre-deployed troops around the world may have been valid during the cold war years but now all we really need is a few bases like i mentioned... in the UK (north atlantic), Italy (Mediterranean), Diego Garcia (Indian ocean) and Cuba (just because :p)

Continuing deployment like we have is fine if we are expecting another large scale land war, but those do not happen anymore. Today's military engagements are smaller and rapidly moving. Think of the success we are having with drones ... they are flying in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq but are often controlled by crews located here in the USA.


Of course i would like to see them come home to new bases along the Mexiacan boarder so it is easier to quell the unrest brewing there :) but home to our soil would be fantastic.


To answer the concerns of a "large standing army" we are about to start downsizing that this year they are looking at a 10% budget cut.

The wave of the future in warfare is counter-terrorism, everybody else is too mature for open warfare.

For the record i know that many countries are involved in peacekeeping missions and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. IIRC, only soldiers form the UK, Australia, Canada and the US engage in fighting ... the rest mainly are support and logistic people which is useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

iirc, deploying the military inside of our borders, short of martial law or a national emergency being declared, is completely illegal.

in other news, i'm in favor of keeping our troops deployed, and spending as much as possible on defense :) gotta work hard and stay on that bleeding edge

---

But that is just because you work for a defense subcontractor! we can still build cool toys for the future!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I think I must have missed something (either your or jim's intention) because I have no clue what you mean.

---

Sorry Bruno. It's just the way I read it. Let me explain:

Jim posts this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

Well it is about time somebody says it. The time for the Marshall plan and related treaties is passed! Other then a token bases on the shores of the UK, Italy, Diego Garcia and Cuba, it is time to pull our troops out of every foreign country. Except, where there are still open hostilities such as Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

This would allow US bases to remain open/ re-open and would lower our overall military costs without jeopardizing our borders.

Further, this would lower anxiety around the world and foster either national pride or capitulation among nations that do not want to provide for their own defense.

in the era of an ever spiraling out of control budget we must make cuts where possible. End our NATO and UN contributions and allow others the freedom to assume their place in history.

---

My brain distills this into: "We are tired of being the worlds muscle. Its time for you all to stand or die on your own merit! No excuses!"

You posted this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except this is not really desirable, because a large standing army on home soil would make a lot of people very antsy. I don't know the specifics surrounding this issue, but isn't this even illegal?

Also, it is not a matter of protection, it is also a matter of strategic importance.
In the event of SHTF, foreign bases are of crucial importance because they allow armies to deploy rapidly.
So unless you propose never to involve yourself again with the rest of the world in a military fashion, 'bringing the boys home' is not an option.

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

The US military is meant for foreign actions ONLY. That's the whole point of foreign bases. There is no point in deploying them at home. They wouldn't have anything to do. So they'd have to be fired en masse. Not sure that would do the economy a whole lot of good.

---

My brain spits out this: " you can't... who will protect us from the big bad men of the world?"
That was my first impression!

I missed this part in Bruno's post:

Quote:

---

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

---

well then most of the rest of the world should be protesting our "army of occupation" As who wants their country occupied? We left forces in Asia and Europe for three reasons

1) to quell any future unrest in europe... we were sick of the nastiness of modern warfare.
2) to protect historic allies from the advances of the USSR
3) and to make it so that other nations would not seek to rebuild a large military complex


As for the needs of the USA... we have enough missiles laying about to prevent either of the remaining powers (Russia and the Peoples Republic of China) from taking too aggressive of a stance against us, all the rest is minor.

But in doing these thing we have robbed the European and Japanese of their cultural heritage and honor. It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

---

I like the way you phrase it!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

I
But in doing these thing we have robbed the European and Japanese of their cultural heritage and honor. It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

---

Well the Netherlands do not have a really great cultural heritage or need for testicular fortitude as you put it..

This has gone horibly wrong in the second ww where we were not prepared for the germans and tried to fight them off with our army on bycicles and flooding area's since then we have build up a decent arrmy that helps their allies and takes it responsibility in international conflics..(yes the Netherlands have troops in Iraq and Afganistan and they are not on a picknick)

I do agree that the presence of american troops in Europe isnt all that nessesary but comes in handy for the US if they should venture on another war.

Maarten

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sicboater

No. We're almost even for you guys allowing Stella Artois to be sold to the rest of the world as "Belgian" beer. You're getting AIG's management team in a large fedex envelope next week.

---

Stella Artois IS Belgian beer. It's brewed in Leuven, a small city with one of the most important universities in the countries, close to Brussels. Well, the original Stella is. No idea what we sell to the rest of the world. Might be the brewer's bottled wastewater for all I know. :D Leuven's brewery capacity isn't large enough to provide for international production...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

My brain spits out this: " you can't... who will protect us from the big bad men of the world?"
That was my first impression!

---

Hmmm. Definitely NOT what I meant. Read my post again :)

What I meant was that from the US pov, it would be silly because you need forward bases to be able to rapidly deploy armies, and have refuleing capabilities, safe airstrips, etc.
Without those, it will be very difficult to move troops / materials rapidly.

I did not mean that I am counting on the US to protect us. As far as I am concerned, I'd be more than happy for US bases to close over here. It'd mean that Europe has to up its cooperation internally and increase its armed forces. That is one of the things that I'd be in favor of.

But as I said, it'd be a loss for the US because you lose the quick deployment. Even if full scale land wars are a thing of the past, there are still several scenarios where you need to get lots of stuff and people to a small region asap. And without bases, you have no choice but to rely on allies.
And once you let go of the bases, you won't get them back any time soon. It's like, if you withdraw from cuba, you can't go back without creating a major incident.

The only way in which I can see the closing of bases not causing harm is if the US would build and deploy more aircraft carriers, because those could then fulfill the role that is now filled by forward bases.

So by all means, don't let us deter you from demanding the closing of foreign bases. Especially in Europe.
I'll help them pack if need be :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

I made no reference to deploying US troops within out borders as they are not allowed to engage the civilian population. But we most certainly may have bases here in the USA. In fact they are often used in times of natural disasters. Military personnel often sandbag levees and dikes but they do not perform "police type activities, that is reserved for the police and national guard.

The concept of having pre-deployed troops around the world may have been valid during the cold war years but now all we really need is a few bases like i mentioned... in the UK (north atlantic), Italy (Mediterranean), Diego Garcia (Indian ocean) and Cuba (just because :p)
Continuing deployment like we have is fine if we are expecting another large scale land war, but those do not happen anymore. Today's military engagements are smaller and rapidly moving. Think of the success we are having with drones ... they are flying in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq but are often controlled by crews located here in the USA.


Of course i would like to see them come home to new bases along the Mexiacan boarder so it is easier to quell the unrest brewing there :) but home to our soil would be fantastic.


To answer the concerns of a "large standing army" we are about to start downsizing that this year they are looking at a 10% budget cut.

The wave of the future in warfare is counter-terrorism, everybody else is too mature for open warfare.

For the record i know that many countries are involved in peacekeeping missions and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. IIRC, only soldiers form the UK, Australia, Canada and the US engage in fighting ... the rest mainly are support and logistic people which is useful.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but this is what we thought in the late 80s, prior to the first gulf war. Then it took months to move heavy forces to the theatre....I think it's good to have a presence in hot spots. It is a psychological deterrent and physical trip-wire for those who might act against our interests.

Jordan