|
|
blog roll
|
chavez survives recount...,
2004-08-16 16:35:29
| Main |
garbage...,
2004-08-17 17:43:11
leave it to the liberal NY Times:
to denounce a reduction in US occupation forces abroad. I realize it's just so they can be redeployed to occupy other places (such as they have in Latin America), but really, the Times appears upset that the 'lillypads' only involve brief stays. How is it a good thing if German tax payers are footing the bill for hosting 70,000 American troops on their soil? I thought removing bases from Germany was supposed to be punishment to their economy for having not fallen in line over Iraq, wouldn't it be good for our economy to cover their hosting costs in the US? It would cost less, just base them somewhere amidst the rust belt. What do we need them in the heart of Europe for now other than imperial hubris? The only legitemate complaint in the editorial is that troop reductions in South Korea could have been used to bargain or ease tensions with NK - looking on the bright side considering the amount of crime committed with impunity by American troops based there, among other grievances, it might help ease our relations with SK. Why is it "good to aim to reduce the number of job and location changes in a typical Army career"? I thought seeing the world and learning new job skills was half the point of joining the US military. Yadda.
Update 8/19: Check Chalmers Johnson's response: "if they really mean it, I'd have to admit we all ought to support them", referring to the withdrawals, not the redeployments to bases around central asia and iraq. Via diane warth.
:: posted by buermann @ 2004-08-17 10:21:45 CST |
link
|
|
|
|
