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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (38983)	8/16/2005 10:00:06 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

and the dems idea of military alliances is to park our forces 'over there' and continue to do the heavy lifting look what holbrooke had to say about our stated objectives in draw down from germany, apparently he is worried about the billions countries spend to 'support our troops'... transalation: he's worried about the BILLIONS they haven't spent for their own weapons systems and military bases (this article was printed during the presidential campaign) dw-world.de snip But while the Germans were putting on a brave face and the Russians remained edgy, opposition to the withdrawal in the United States was more vociferous. Unsurprisingly, the majority of criticism came from supporters of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. "This is another example of the (Bush) administration's unilateralism. It's going to weaken our national security," said Richard Holbrooke, a Kerry foreign policy adviser and former ambassador to the UN and Germany under former President Clinton, in a widely reported statement. "It is not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to bring these troops home." Holbrooke also focused on the economic demands which the troop redeployment would shift from the host countries back to the United States. "Germany, South Korea and Japan, which will see the biggest cuts, all spend billions of dollars to support the troops. And I am very concerned about this." Holbrooke also rejected President George W. Bush's assertion that bringing the troops home would make it easier to rapidly deploy them to global trouble spots. He called bases in Germany, South Korea and Okinawa "essential" along with other forward deployments. "Even in the modern world, airplanes take time to get places," Holbrooke said. "This is a weakening of our traditional ties to our closest allies just when we need them most."

To: Bill who wrote (38983)	8/16/2005 1:02:57 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

"We have troops deployed in the UK, but we're shutting bases here." It is not a matter of "here at home" vs. "over there". Bases are closing here, if Congress will allow it, because there are simply too many of them - many are completely unnecessary. Some bases overseas exist for reasons similar to those that make base closings here difficult - i.e. politics over military need - but that does not support a "bring 'em home" argument either. The bottom line is bases and troops should be located so as to most efficiently deploy equipment and troops when and where needed. And I seriously doubt more than literally a handful in the military consider being stationed in the UK, Germany, Japan, Korea or a number of other places any real hardship from which they long to return home ASAP.