Comments on: We have troops in 130 countries http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/ Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:25:44 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Herman King http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-134568 Herman King Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:50:40 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-134568 Scott, I assume you also agree with giving so much foreign aid to countries, esp. Israel? Scott, I assume you also agree with giving so much foreign aid to countries, esp. Israel?

]]> By: Chet Hale http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-107700 Chet Hale Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:43:03 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-107700 Scott, I am a vet and have two daughters, a son-in-law and brother-in-law in active duty. We are and will always be, a pro-military family. I think that this country has need of a standing army and greater need of a large, forceful Navy. Of course, with all that as a lead-in you will be waiting for the "but" so here it is. If we are to have a strong military to defend our country why should we not have a military strong enough to defend this country against any and every threat? Why should we not spend whatever money is necessary to build systems that could take out any satellite, incoming missle, computer threats, etc and deploy them as close to our enemies as we can? Why should we not forceably disarm our enemies? Where do we draw the line and who do you think has the right and authority draw it? Scott,

I am a vet and have two daughters, a son-in-law and brother-in-law in active duty. We are and will always be, a pro-military family. I think that this country has need of a standing army and greater need of a large, forceful Navy. Of course, with all that as a lead-in you will be waiting for the “but” so here it is. If we are to have a strong military to defend our country why should we not have a military strong enough to defend this country against any and every threat? Why should we not spend whatever money is necessary to build systems that could take out any satellite, incoming missle, computer threats, etc and deploy them as close to our enemies as we can? Why should we not forceably disarm our enemies? Where do we draw the line and who do you think has the right and authority draw it?

]]> By: Scott Malensek http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6305 Scott Malensek Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:18:45 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6305 Grace, throughout this thread-and including in the OP, I've cited Ron Paul's claims from his website. For Rep Kucinich, Is suggest watching that oh-so-patriotic interview he did in Syria a week or two ago. Surely you'll see similar claims in it. Best, Scott :) Grace, throughout this thread-and including in the OP, I’ve cited Ron Paul’s claims from his website. For Rep Kucinich, Is suggest watching that oh-so-patriotic interview he did in Syria a week or two ago. Surely you’ll see similar claims in it.

Best,
Scott :)

]]> By: Chuck http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6304 Chuck Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:44:08 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6304 How many of those "occupying" troops in foreign countries consist of the security personnel in our embassies? Marines provide that kind of security. The Global Security list does not make that distinction. How many of those “occupying” troops in foreign countries consist of the security personnel in our embassies? Marines provide that kind of security. The Global Security list does not make that distinction.

]]> By: Curt http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6303 Curt Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:12 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6303 Excellent point Scott, if we should only protect this country then why in the world do we need this large Navy for? Or Marines for that matter since they are an expeditionary force primarily. Navy lands them and they secure the area for the larger Army to come in. We could mothball the whole Navy and just grow the Coast Guard to patrol our waters. It's scary how these guys think actually. Completely insane. Excellent point Scott, if we should only protect this country then why in the world do we need this large Navy for? Or Marines for that matter since they are an expeditionary force primarily. Navy lands them and they secure the area for the larger Army to come in. We could mothball the whole Navy and just grow the Coast Guard to patrol our waters.

It’s scary how these guys think actually. Completely insane.

]]> By: wordsmith http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6302 wordsmith Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:10:59 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6302 Grace, You can <a href="http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2007/09/11/dispicable/" rel="nofollow">listen to Kucinich</a> use the word several times in this recent trip. As for Ron Paul, just Google the word "occupation" and "Ron Paul". I've seen and heard it used by him, and it shouldn't be so hard to find. That was easy: <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul362.html" rel="nofollow">Here's one</a>. I bet you can find him using the word if you go to his website; maybe even in the recent surge of anti-RP posts we did here over the weekend. Really, what's the big deal with the word, "occupation"? RP uses it freely, without reservation. Grace,

You can listen to Kucinich use the word several times in this recent trip.

As for Ron Paul, just Google the word “occupation” and “Ron Paul”. I’ve seen and heard it used by him, and it shouldn’t be so hard to find.

That was easy: Here’s one.

I bet you can find him using the word if you go to his website; maybe even in the recent surge of anti-RP posts we did here over the weekend. Really, what’s the big deal with the word, “occupation”? RP uses it freely, without reservation.

]]> By: Grace Nearing http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6301 Grace Nearing Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:42:36 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6301 <i>Whether it’s Democratic Presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, or Republican candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden…millions-perhaps billions of people around the globe believe that <b>the United States military is occupying the 130 of the 193 nations on the planet.</b></i> Got any links handy? I don't care about bin Laden, but I am curious to see the actual terms that Paul and Kucinich use. Do they really use words like "occupy" or "occupation"? Or do they use terms like "bases" and "installations"? Some links would be nice. Whether it’s Democratic Presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, or Republican candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden…millions-perhaps billions of people around the globe believe that the United States military is occupying the 130 of the 193 nations on the planet.

Got any links handy?

I don’t care about bin Laden, but I am curious to see the actual terms that Paul and Kucinich use. Do they really use words like “occupy” or “occupation”? Or do they use terms like “bases” and “installations”?

Some links would be nice.

]]> By: MP http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6300 MP Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:19:34 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6300 Have things really gotten so bad that the U.S. military is now "arguably" the strongest in the world? The U.S. could not invade, say, China, or Russia at this point, but then it likely never could have even at the post-Soviet peak of U.S. military manpower strength. Who at this point is more qualitatively outfitted and more capable of projecting power globally? Have things really gotten so bad that the U.S. military is now “arguably” the strongest in the world? The U.S. could not invade, say, China, or Russia at this point, but then it likely never could have even at the post-Soviet peak of U.S. military manpower strength. Who at this point is more qualitatively outfitted and more capable of projecting power globally?

]]> By: Scott Malensek http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6299 Scott Malensek Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:26:43 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6299 Julian's comment (an echo of Ron Paul and all Paulbot's position really) got me thinking. If having 1, 6, 12, 24 soldiers in 100+ countries is too much, if it's not worth the money, and the perception is that they're not defending the US, then perhaps we should scuttle the US Navy as well since a 5000-man carrier (and the 5000-10000 sailors and Marines on ships supporting and escorting it) could easily be replaced by ten thousand bassmaster assault craft to patrol the 12 miles of US waters. Anything beyond that apparently isn't worth having army or Marine forces positioned, so why would it be ok or reasonable to have carriers on the other side of the planet? Nah, scuttle the USN. Bring the troops home. No blood for tuna! Julian’s comment (an echo of Ron Paul and all Paulbot’s position really) got me thinking. If having 1, 6, 12, 24 soldiers in 100+ countries is too much, if it’s not worth the money, and the perception is that they’re not defending the US, then perhaps we should scuttle the US Navy as well since a 5000-man carrier (and the 5000-10000 sailors and Marines on ships supporting and escorting it) could easily be replaced by ten thousand bassmaster assault craft to patrol the 12 miles of US waters. Anything beyond that apparently isn’t worth having army or Marine forces positioned, so why would it be ok or reasonable to have carriers on the other side of the planet? Nah, scuttle the USN. Bring the troops home. No blood for tuna!

]]> By: Scott Malensek http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6298 Scott Malensek Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:45:30 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6298 Julian, to pretend the US military isn't defending America is naive. Even when there's a soldier here and a Marine there, those people are in place not as tokens, but ready to support US forces at a moment's notice if the US ever needs to send forces to Bali, Indonesia, etc. Do you think they're just sitting around doing nothing, or perhaps one believes that the American occupation of Mongolia is a token gesture? Best of all the idea that "The American military should defend America" is in complete opposition to the idea that the US has no business in Iraq or Afghanistan as Al Queda is in both places, and the US military is fighting them there; "defend[ing] America." Where would you prefer the US military fight Al Queda? Perhaps we could send a messenger to Al Queda and ask them to change the location of the fight to...(where)? Al Queda's lost tens of thousands of terrorists to the US military fighting in Iraq. Would it be better to send more forces to the Graveyard of Empires, or would it be better to fight AQ on ground of the US military's choosing? Or maybe if we just ended the huge occupation of 130 countries (choke/laugh) then Osama Bin Laden and all of the rest of the world's Islamic Holy Warriors would take off their bomb vests and open florists? Julian, to pretend the US military isn’t defending America is naive. Even when there’s a soldier here and a Marine there, those people are in place not as tokens, but ready to support US forces at a moment’s notice if the US ever needs to send forces to Bali, Indonesia, etc. Do you think they’re just sitting around doing nothing, or perhaps one believes that the American occupation of Mongolia is a token gesture?

Best of all the idea that “The American military should defend America” is in complete opposition to the idea that the US has no business in Iraq or Afghanistan as Al Queda is in both places, and the US military is fighting them there; “defend[ing] America.” Where would you prefer the US military fight Al Queda? Perhaps we could send a messenger to Al Queda and ask them to change the location of the fight to…(where)? Al Queda’s lost tens of thousands of terrorists to the US military fighting in Iraq. Would it be better to send more forces to the Graveyard of Empires, or would it be better to fight AQ on ground of the US military’s choosing? Or maybe if we just ended the huge occupation of 130 countries (choke/laugh) then Osama Bin Laden and all of the rest of the world’s Islamic Holy Warriors would take off their bomb vests and open florists?

]]> By: Julian H. http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6297 Julian H. Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:11:11 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6297 The problem is not that we're occupying the countries, it's that our military force is too stretched. It's also principle. The American military should defend America, not be used as "tokens." The problem is not that we’re occupying the countries, it’s that our military force is too stretched. It’s also principle. The American military should defend America, not be used as “tokens.”

]]> By: Scott Malensek http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6296 Scott Malensek Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:06:02 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6296 It seems to me that in most cases the token forces that are in 9/10 of these countries listed in the OP's link are forces not occupying (c'mon, 1 guy is not an occupation force), but more likely liaison units and/or facility maintenance units. This goes directly to the comments about Japan, Germany, etc. During the half-century plus that the US has been in these places extensive facilities have been built. Ramstein is still one of the premier hospitals in the world. Japan has some of the best port facilities and airfields critically useful to the region. And that leads me to DPRK, North Korea. I'm not at all sold on the idea that they're a weak force. Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. They have more special forces troops than we do. They have a 48-hr, 5 MILLION man reserve force; i.e. North Korea can field largest army in the world in two days. Remember, that country has NOTHING to export except military hardware. They've more ballistic missiles than most of the nations in the world combined (if you remove the top 5 ballistic missile nations). They are a serious threat....thankfully, the ROK troops are tough as nails too, and the entire nation of South Korea is designed to be a killing field. I'll never forget seeing pics of large concrete blocks hanging on pillars on the sides of a road. What are they for? All over South Korea there are these blocks, and the idea is that if invaded, engineers can come, blow up the small blocks holding them up, and they'll fall down blocking roads. It's amazing. That place is one giant killing machine waiting to be invaded by a giant killing machine. It's a powderkeg imo (hence my first book and first series of books on the threat of a North Korean conventional war). Yes, sometimes US military presence is ill-advised, but not in 130 cases. A close examination of that list shows in almost NO CASES-including Iraq and Afghanistan where America's enemy, Al Queda, are being slaughtered en masse in a way that law enforcement alone could never come close to accomplishing. It seems to me that in most cases the token forces that are in 9/10 of these countries listed in the OP’s link are forces not occupying (c’mon, 1 guy is not an occupation force), but more likely liaison units and/or facility maintenance units. This goes directly to the comments about Japan, Germany, etc. During the half-century plus that the US has been in these places extensive facilities have been built. Ramstein is still one of the premier hospitals in the world. Japan has some of the best port facilities and airfields critically useful to the region. And that leads me to DPRK, North Korea. I’m not at all sold on the idea that they’re a weak force. Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. They have more special forces troops than we do. They have a 48-hr, 5 MILLION man reserve force; i.e. North Korea can field largest army in the world in two days. Remember, that country has NOTHING to export except military hardware. They’ve more ballistic missiles than most of the nations in the world combined (if you remove the top 5 ballistic missile nations). They are a serious threat….thankfully, the ROK troops are tough as nails too, and the entire nation of South Korea is designed to be a killing field. I’ll never forget seeing pics of large concrete blocks hanging on pillars on the sides of a road. What are they for? All over South Korea there are these blocks, and the idea is that if invaded, engineers can come, blow up the small blocks holding them up, and they’ll fall down blocking roads. It’s amazing. That place is one giant killing machine waiting to be invaded by a giant killing machine. It’s a powderkeg imo (hence my first book and first series of books on the threat of a North Korean conventional war).

Yes, sometimes US military presence is ill-advised, but not in 130 cases. A close examination of that list shows in almost NO CASES-including Iraq and Afghanistan where America’s enemy, Al Queda, are being slaughtered en masse in a way that law enforcement alone could never come close to accomplishing.

]]> By: Todd Anthony http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6295 Todd Anthony Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:31:28 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6295 One more thing: this sort of rhetoric from the Left certainly epitomizes their collective opinion of our military. Naturally, they assume they rather HELPING the local population to which they are stationed, they are instead raping, pillaging, plundering, etc. (see John Murtha: Haditha, or recent comments from certain Democratic presidential candidates stating unequivocally that the our military has failed in Iraq). One more thing: this sort of rhetoric from the Left certainly epitomizes their collective opinion of our military. Naturally, they assume they rather HELPING the local population to which they are stationed, they are instead raping, pillaging, plundering, etc. (see John Murtha: Haditha, or recent comments from certain Democratic presidential candidates stating unequivocally that the our military has failed in Iraq).

]]> By: Todd Anthony http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6294 Todd Anthony Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:25:17 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6294 I think part of the problems made by people such as Kucinich, Edwards, et al. is two fold: 1.) they are completely disingenuous; 2.) they are merely pandering to the very dangerous anti-war movement. The bottom line is that they are consumed with their hatred for all-things Bush, they are willing to sell this country down the river, purely to advance their progressive agenda (which for some reason, includes Islam, which abhors everything the Left stand for). I think part of the problems made by people such as Kucinich, Edwards, et al. is two fold: 1.) they are completely disingenuous; 2.) they are merely pandering to the very dangerous anti-war movement.

The bottom line is that they are consumed with their hatred for all-things Bush, they are willing to sell this country down the river, purely to advance their progressive agenda (which for some reason, includes Islam, which abhors everything the Left stand for).

]]> By: Todd Anthony http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countrie/#comment-6293 Todd Anthony Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:22:57 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/09/we-have-troops-in-130-countries/#comment-6293 While definitely not an equal to us in terms of technology, I'm not sure I would discount the North Korean army a joke, solely due to its sheer numbers. Don't you think that if the 30,000 American soldiers would leave Korea, the massive North Korean horde would flood the DMZ and head straight for Seoul. And what about its nukes? While definitely not an equal to us in terms of technology, I’m not sure I would discount the North Korean army a joke, solely due to its sheer numbers. Don’t you think that if the 30,000 American soldiers would leave Korea, the massive North Korean horde would flood the DMZ and head straight for Seoul. And what about its nukes?

]]>