Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (226852)	3/29/2005 2:42:43 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573213

It's sort of depressing that Syria is able to show significantly progress in returning soveriegnity to Lebanon in less than a month, whereas the coalition is showing very limited progress in returning soveriegnity to Iraq in two years. Syrian military presence in Lebanon down to 8,000 gulf-news.com There is no reason to believe that Iraq without coalition troops will be a more volatile place than Lebanon without Syrian troops. If the Syrians can leave within a month, why can't the coalition troops leave in a year? Are we that much slower than the Syrians?

To: Elroy who wrote (226852)	3/29/2005 7:06:15 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573213

Elroy, you need to see the bigger picture. After Germany was pacified, we kept 70,000 troops there for 60 years. Only recently have we drawn down that number. In South Korea and Japan, we kept 75,000 troops. Only recently have we started to draw that down. In total, we kept 200,000 troops stationed in Europe and Asia (http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-24-98.html) as part of the U.S. global strategic posture for 60 years! All of this was was meant to keep Russia and China in check during the cold war. It worked and we have now started to draw them down. The new threat the U.S. faces is in the Middle East. We have rotated quite a few troops from Germany, South Korea, and Japan, straight over to Iraq and Afghanistan. The net cost to the U.S. over what we were spending with troops deployed in Europe is higher, because Europe was subsidizing our troops. However, if we are to maintain peace in the Middle East, then we are going to need a large troop and Navy presence in the region for decades to come. I'd like to see our troops drawn down in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have no illusions that most will be coming home. We will need bases, airstrips, and aircraft carriers in the region to support troops stationed in the Middle East for the foreseeable future, because that will remain the hotspot for decades until all of those countries become Democratic, just like most of Eastern Europe did after the fall of the U.S.S.R. So you might as well get use to the idea.