Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Europeans leaders worry Trump wants to fulfill promise to bring American troops home
Topic Started: Jul 7 2018, 07:16 AM (104 Views)
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jul 7 2018, 12:43 PM
Harambe4Trump
Jul 7 2018, 10:48 AM
Hughmac
Jul 7 2018, 10:05 AM
Harambe4Trump
Jul 7 2018, 09:39 AM
Tsalagi
Jul 7 2018, 09:36 AM
Well, on principle, sounds nice, but we need ports like Roto, Spain, NAS Sigonella, Italy, bases like Ramstein and Landstuhl for forward projection of power and a central drop off for wounded from any military action outside CONUS, but I agree, 75% we could shutter and still be on an operational tempo.

I tend to agree with H, our interests now lay in the Pacific. While I'll never trust the Russian Bear not to once again stretch itself out again, China should be our primary concern
We do not need forward projection in fortress America.
You never cease to amaze me with your puerile, simplistic reasoning - H
Occam’s Razor has always been beyond your grasp.
On the contrary, If you, H4T, repeatedly make unrealistic observations, the simplest explanation is that you never had a grip on reality in the first place, rather than your possessing a profound and all-encompassing grasp that you unwittingly conceal from us owing to the concussion brought about by a near miss from a meteor strike.

Cheers
Hughmac
As an artist, realism isn’t my thing. Beauty is.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
dcbl
Jul 7 2018, 07:20 AM
if they want our troops there then they need to step up and pay their fair share

they also need to match our tariff rates

man I LOVE this president

it is WAY past time that these type of things get done

we have been in Europe almost 75 years since the end of WWII

these quasi socialist states are able to give so many benefits to their people because WE pay for their defense

and Trump is letting them know

Germany and China are already offering trade concessions; the Germans will need to step up their monetary contributions for defense

or we need to leave; if we MUST have bases over there, move them to Poland
yep...I like the Poland plan....

Poland offers US up to $2B for permanent military base

http://perspectives.com/topic/10513442/1/#new
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Hughmac
Jul 7 2018, 09:58 AM
Tsalagi
Jul 7 2018, 09:36 AM
Well, on principle, sounds nice, but we need ports like Roto, Spain, NAS Sigonella, Italy, bases like Ramstein and Landstuhl for forward projection of power and a central drop off for wounded from any military action outside CONUS, but I agree, 75% we could shutter and still be on an operational tempo.

I tend to agree with H, our interests now lay in the Pacific. While I'll never trust the Russian Bear not to once again stretch itself out again, China should be our primary concern
British bases strung out all over the globe were not there in the interest of the local population, but as way stations for global reach.

The British Empire brought with it the seeds of its own destruction: self determination, as exploited (righty) by Gandhi.

Many US posters confuse (with childlike ignorance) the location of its bases with 'benevolence towards' the local population - US bases are not there as a favour to the local government but as a deployment point for global projection.

To defend yourself, you have to be out there on the frontier of your interests. Bases in Japan and Korea are not there to fend the populations of the said country but as logistic neurological centres for forward operations.

In boxing, he with the longest reach holds an advantage that can only be negated by the speed of your opponent. The US, like the British Empire before it, uses overseas bases as "reach and speed."

Therefore, you don't need bases in Germany against Russia; you need them as second lines to forward operational bases in Southern Europe for North Africa and the Middle East.

Bases in conflict zones are vulnerable; those in Southern Europe are not to the same degree as conflict-zone FOBs.

Furthermore, soldiers will be more willing to risk themselves knowing that they can be in top-class, military hospitals within 24 hours; we're talking Germany unless you can move them to Spain, Italy or Greece.

But, where you are going to need most of your military assets is in the Pacific. China is not Al Qaida, as the West found out in Korea in the 1950. So, 70 years on, China in the 21st Century is much more of an adversary than the USSR in the 1960s. Much, much more.

As long as you need fossil fuel you will need to keep a presence in Southern Europe, for your own good; not Europe's, but where your heaviest punch must be is housed is in the Pacific.

Cheers
Hughmac

Britain's global reach now only extends to Channel Islands................... :oyvey:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic »
Add Reply