Brian could you clarify your request for clarification please?

what's to clarify? a couple of examples: the disco bombing in germany, the bombing of the uss cole in yemen. do you think those happen but for the u.s. presence those countries?


edit: and please don't say something about me blaming americans for these events. i'm clearly not. just pointing out that the u.s. were the targets and those bombings wouldn't have happened without the u.s. troops/citizens being present in those locations.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

As difficult as it is to agree with Brian286, I ask you to go ahead and ask the govts in Europe how they feel about the U.S. leaving the area. Our forward presence deters threats from national level powers. That's part of why terrorism is so en vogue. We also use forward basing as forward staging to move out to areas that we engage in. It's much cheaper to keep some men and a bunch of equipment in Germany or Afghanistan in case we want or need to use force or deploy for peacekeeping/enforcement or even training missions, than it is to fly all that crap from the U.S. If you seriously think having forward deployed troops is a bad thing, you clearly don't have much understanding of how the military works, or the broad scope of issues that fall under the "national interests" and are influenced by having readily available military power.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

if the u.s. has involvement in world affairs beyond its own borders, it obviously becomes necessary to be able to stage troops at key points around the globe. i wasn't advocating removing bases/troops(with the exception getting the eff out of dodge in iraq). but the presence of u.s. troops/interests is most definitely an inviting target. i don't believe terrorist groups would take interest in many countries if there weren't troops there.

moreover, it's making a huge assumption, as brian did, to say that because there haven't been attacks in various countries, it must be as a result of the u.s. troops/bases there. the primary reason for u.s. bases in places like germany and turkey isn't to protect the local populace. it's so that the u.s. can get troops/materiel to various locations with dispatch. if they were there to protect germans or turks, then the assertion that no attacks is because of u.s. troops is more sustainable(although still shaky).

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"i don't believe terrorist groups would take interest in many countries if there weren't troops there. "

Terrorists operate in all kinds of countries in which U.S. troops aren't stationed. They also attack targets completely unrelated to U.S. troop basing all the time. For instance, they attacked the train station in Spain, a country in which we have no major troop presence, and a target which was not military.

"moreover, it's making a huge assumption, as brian did, to say that because there haven't been attacks in various countries, it must be as a result of the u.s. troops/bases there. the primary reason for u.s. bases in places like germany and turkey isn't to protect the local populace. it's so that the u.s. can get troops/materiel to various locations with dispatch."

Part of the reason there is peace in Europe is American troops. Part of the reason we keep troops there is for resupply enroute to theaters of operations. This isn't a case of it being one thing or the other. There are mutiple facets to our basing priorities.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's why I listed it as an ancillary benefit.

if the bases/us troops are a significant deterrent to attacks, wouldn't there be more attacks in areas without troops/bases?

i can only really recall the march 11 bombing in spain, and the bombing in indonesia.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I think terrorist attacks might be getting confused with an actual military invasion. I'm thinking Brian286 & slowguy are saying that our permanant military presence in Germany has helped deter aggression from actual organized military units/nations. Terrorists are "hit and run" type attacks.

Just trying to clear things up (I hope).

Brett

---

"Du or Du not-there is no Tri" - Yoda

"if the bases/us troops are a significant deterrent to attacks, wouldn't there be more attacks in areas without troops/bases?

i can only really recall the march 11 bombing in spain, and the bombing in indonesia.
"

As i said, U.S. troops are deterrent to "national level" attacks. By this I mean that it is a deterrent from Russia attacking Poland, or the like. Now that we no longer really fear that particular scenario, we are moving our troops and our basing to reflect current threats.

As for the terrorist attacks, if you think those two are the only attacks in recent history, you really need to do a little research.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

no, i know those aren't the only two, but in terms of mid-east based terrorist attacks, those are the only two in which the target was someone other than the u.s. that spring to mind. and mid-east, islamo-fascist terrorism is generally the context being referred to in these conversations.

treaty agreements also play as big of deterrent factor at the national level as troop presence.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"no, i know those aren't the only two, but in terms of mid-east based terrorist attacks, those are the only two in which the target was someone other than the u.s. that spring to mind. and mid-east, islamo-fascist terrorism is generally the context being referred to in these conversations."

Well, I don't know when the rule was set that we were only talking about Islamic Extremist terrorism, since forward basing really isn't geared towards terrorism, but whatever. Still, those two attacks aren't the only Islamic terrorist attacks in recnet history either.

Here's some info:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/33786.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33773.htm

These are the significant, and not so significant terrorist incidents for 2003. The 2004 report isn't done yet.

"treaty agreements also play as big of deterrent factor at the national level as troop presence."

Treaties are only effective if an agressor believes the parties will actually bring force to bear to enforce those treaties. One way we have convinced people in the past that we would come to the aid of our friends was to have a military presence overseas.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

[reply] .....

Here's some info:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/33786.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33773.htm

........[/reply]

where is your stability? In the most of these attacked states you have troops. US Bases in Europe minimize logistic problems of your crusade and some of the locals get a job there but stability may bring the NATO but not your bases. Who the hell wants to attack Canada?

Man, please read what I wrote.

Bases bring stability in the form of deterrence from NATIONAL LEVEL ATTACKS. In other words, they prevent Russia from attacking Poland. I never claimed that having troops in any area bring freedom from terrorist attack.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yeah, but that wouldn't be any fun.

---

_______________________________________________

I see, your bases prevent this side of the world from the other side. ...... what's about Canada? Who wants to attack Canada? Poland? Syria? US? or what is with Cuba? You got a base in Cuba. Who wants to attack Cuba?

btw: which computer games do you prefer?

Are you saying that if the United States did not have bases present in Canada, Poland, or Syria that those countries would not erect military defenses for the mere reason that no one wants to attack them?

What base in Syria? What is remi talking about?

---

_______________________________________________

"What is remi talking about? "

Good question.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)