USA to pull out of NATO?

[Rick Lee]

Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Seahawk]

Here is what I would like to see:

1. A return to the topic
2. Symbolic support only for NATO. Pull all trigger pullers out of Europe. Leave an airbase or two and some hospital infrastructure. Maybe a place to park the tanks should we ever need them. Otherwise, bring everyone home and cancel all mutual protection treatises with every country that holds one.
3. Symbolic support only for the UN...after the UN leaves NYC. The UN is no longer functional. If it becomes functional or ever needed again, we can expand our support appropriately.
4. Bring all troops home from Korea. We have absolutely no dog in that fight.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

4. Bring all troops home from Korea. We have absolutely no dog in that fight.

What?!?!?! Isn't So. Korea something like in our top five trading partners? Any fight there would inevitably draw China and Japan into the mix and they certainly large trading partners of ours. That's a war we cannot afford on many fronts. 34k troops there is a pretty small force for the disastrous consequences they deter from coming true. It chaps my hide that the younger So. Koreans don't view the North as a threat and, in my fantasy world of fairness, I'd love to see them get a dose of reality the day we remove our last troops. But that's bad for us too. Seoul is about the size of NYC, is within artillery range of the North and is guaranteed to be completely destroyed if fighting breaks out there. We can't afford a war there and several of our big trading partners can't afford it either.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

What?!?!?! Isn't So. Korea something like in our top five trading partners? Any fight there would inevitably draw China and Japan into the mix and they certainly large trading partners of ours. That's a war we cannot afford on many fronts. 34k troops there is a pretty small force for the disastrous consequences they deter from coming true. It chaps my hide that the younger So. Koreans don't view the North as a threat and, in my fantasy world of fairness, I'd love to see them get a dose of reality the day we remove our last troops. But that's bad for us too. Seoul is about the size of NYC, is within artillery range of the North and is guaranteed to be completely destroyed if fighting breaks out there. We can't afford a war there and several of our big trading partners can't afford it either.

Rick,

They are a wealthy, modern nation. Let them create the right mix of Army, Air Force and Navy to fend off their enemy. Why don't we have 34k in all of our top, say, ten, trading partners?

Beside, our force there is little more than a trip wire...even our 30 thousand dudes and dudettes will be a skid mark should NK come across. Beside, Shaun could use the textile work

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Rick,

They are a wealthy, modern nation. Let them create the right mix of Army, Air Force and Navy to fend off their enemy. Why don't we have 34k in all of our top, say, ten, trading partners?

Beside, our force there is little more than a trip wire...even our 30 thousand dudes and dudettes will be a skid mark should NK come across. Beside, Shaun could use the textile work

We have far more than 34k troops near our top two trading partners, which are our northern and southern neighbors and they pose no threat whatsoever. So. Korea has a pretty large military on its own and I have no doubt they'd prevail against the North, even if they had to fight them without Japan's or our help. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences in it for us. If deterring the North required something like 500k troops, then I'd say we need to review that one. But 34k troops are just a tripwire force. They're a symbol of our commitment should anything happen there and that alone keeps bad things from happening. I think it's a good bang for the buck. Any failure of that deterrent would immediately cost more than 100 yrs. of keeping those troops there.

[Rikao4]

there's little difference between young Korean's or European's..
let's go home,
as for the UN, just close it..it's a foreign intel shop on our soil...

Rika

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

We have far more than 34k troops near our top two trading partners, which are our northern and southern neighbors and they pose no threat whatsoever. So. Korea has a pretty large military on its own and I have no doubt they'd prevail against the North, even if they had to fight them without Japan's or our help. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences in it for us. If deterring the North required something like 500k troops, then I'd say we need to review that one. But 34k troops are just a tripwire force. They're a symbol of our commitment should anything happen there and that alone keeps bad things from happening. I think it's a good bang for the buck. Any failure of that deterrent would immediately cost more than 100 yrs. of keeping those troops there.

A good trip wire is 1k logistics folks keeping the airbases and harbors open way down south.

I've been to Korea a bunch, know many guys who have pulled garrison duty there. It blows, not the country, the duty.

I would also bring everyone but the loggies home from Okinawa. Sorry, but we spent way too much of our countries wealth on projects long since past the stage of utility.

I blame military hubris: how can I make general if we pull out of Oki

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Super_Dave_D

I disagree............

Where were the Russians from 39 to mid 41???? In a pact with Germany so they could take Poland!

The Finns kicked Russia's butt. Russia was probably the least talented military in WWII man for man. They simply had so many men that were of no value as human beings to their government that the Stalin just threw them at real armies in hopes that the real armies would get tired of killing them or run out of ammo to kill any more. If you read Bidermanns “In Deadly Combat”, he writes how the commissars kept sending people into his pak gun and supporting MG 42 that they were piling up and he became so sick of killing Russian after Russian wondering how their officers could keep sending them until they ran out of men to get killed.

No way Russia could have defeated Germany without the US and England's involvement and assistance.

I never stated or implied the Russians were the good guys. This is not news. I've read that book and hundreds of others from all participants. I also have spent countless hours going through the American, British, French, Belgium, Swiss, Italian, Polish, and Austrian, German, Russian and Dutch military and historical archives. (BTW, did you know the Poles tried to make a pact with Germany to assist the Nazis in Czechoslovakia if they (the Poles) could have a little piece? Many WW II players’ hands were dirty.)

Your observation that the Russians had more (by 10s of millions) men and were willing to expend them is fairly correct. Please tell me how that relates to the discussion. The Russians were bad guys, so? How does that relate to the discussion that US efforts in WW II Europe were less than the Russian effort?

Let's review the facts;

The overwhelmingly cause of German casualties in WW II was the Russians.

The Western Front was used virtually to the end of the war as a rest and refit location for the German Military.

The Lend Lease to Russia amounted to about 7% or Russia’s total production capacities. The most important items the US sent was transport trucks, gold braid, radios and aluminum. Most of which did not arrive in any quantities until mid 1943, after Stalingrad in the early part of 1943, ( the turning point on the Eastern Front) where the Russians beat the Germans by a combined arms approach encircling battle that was by all examination quite masterful.

The largest tank battle was on the Eastern Front, the largest battle in WW II was on the Eastern Front. The highest production of any single aircraft was on the Eastern Front (Russian of course), the largest artillery barrages were on the Eastern Front.

There is no concrete evidence that Russia could not have defeated Germany alone. I am not saying it would be easy, but they had proved they were the equal overall on the battle field. Man for man comparisons only work on a man to man matchup.
We are discussing the largest land battles recorded, involving millions of men.

These popular myths of what American did for Europe (especially the WW I story) were told to the American public and were sucked up as fact. The historical evidence tells a vastly different story, even from the American Military archives.
Have you researched any of those?

[yamajon]

I wonder how this will effect Haiti....

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by aap1966

I did not dismiss the Russian contribution. In fact, without the Yanks I have no doubt Russia would have "liberated" France, just as they "liberated" East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, etc.
Your assertion that the Western front was a "rest and refit" area for the German military is one I have not previously encountered. Perhaps you would also assert that the inhabitants of Dresden regarded February 13, 14, 15th 1945 as little more than one long airshow?

P.S. You do realise the moon landings weren't faked don't you?

A little research on your part into German military unit movements and the reasons behind them would bring this fact (rest and refit on the Western front) into sharp focus for you.

What does Dresden have to do with this discussion? I am not belittling the our efforts in WW II, I'm only trying to stop the incorrect popular belief that Europe was saved by the Americans twice and to give credit to the majority of effort by the Russians in WW II.

You do realise what the American public was told about the WW II European Theater was not based on the facts, right?.

BTW, G. Washington never chopped down the cherry tree either. Sorry to pop your bubble on that one too.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

RPKQ..Is busy harping again to ignorant Americans who think they won WW2 singlehandedly, with just a tiny bit of Brit help.

PBBBBT...RPKQ..just keep on talkin to the great ignorant Americans. However don't try to run your Commie Lovin rhetoric on me. I know way better.

Without the USA the commie ba$+ard$ would not have won....

Alabert Speer (Nazi Armaments minister 42-45) when asked how the Allies won the war said the US and Brit Strategic Bombing of Germany won the war....."What could 20,000 (sic 88 MM Flak) guns have done on the Eastern Front."

END OF STORY...nothing to see here...

You claim to have more intelligence than you show on this post. You are also claimming that I am a Commie lover. Where, in all your dellusional splender have you found evidence to back that up? You are beginning to sound more and more like snowedman.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Tobra

No

Frenchy, I have a big radio tower in Paris I will sell you for cheap, some Aiphull guy designed it, had something to do with the Statue of Liberty too. I can get you a good price on that if you are interested

Always with the faulty logic and lack of historical evidence. Your understanding of the history of the Stature of Liberty is so sad. Something to do with the US being the second choice for it's location. But why let facts interfere with a rousing cheer of "we're number one!" from the unknowing, pablum fed masses.

[RPKESQ]

Sorry for the slight thread hijack, but to discuss why we are in NATO, the UN or in any overseas basing, should require a accurate understanding of history.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I agree. While some would call moves like that "isolationist", I think a good dose of isolationism is absolutely needed right now including (but not limited to):

1. securing our borders
2. rounding up/kicking out illegals
3. levying huge tariffs against foreign goods (particularly asian/Chinese crap)
4. pulling most (if not all) our troops based abroad home
5. discouraging investment in foreign markets and rewarding investment in domestic companies with tax incentives.
6. paying down our national debt.
7. (perhaps most important) - CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING
8. taking lots of dollars out of circulation

Sounds like Bob Barr '08.
(and that's not a bad thing)

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Sorry for the slight thread hijack, but to discuss why we are in NATO, the UN or in any overseas basing, should require a accurate understanding of history.

I have a very accurate understanding of history and WWII. There is no evidence to support any position stated in this thread, other than Germany was defeated.

How and why Germany was defeated is an argument without context since the massive amounts of men and material expended to defeat the Axis is simply incredible. Focus on the Axis.

Then there is always the Japanese problem should we have not engaged them and they had opened a second front in Russia.

There is no question that the US bore the brunt of the entire spectrum of WWII, not just Europe but the war in the Atlantic, Africa, the Med, the Pacific and Asia. Did we have starring roles in each theater? No, of course not.

But without the US, our willingness to supply men and materials around the world the outcome of WWII is up for grabs.

No other country could have pulled it off. Sorry.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

The Western Front was used virtually to the end of the war as a rest and refit location for the German Military.

The highest production of any single aircraft was on the Eastern Front (

Single aircraft? What does that mean.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Military_a ircraft_of_all_types

And the rest and refit comment is beyond the pale.

[aap1966]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

I'm only trying to stop the incorrect popular belief that Europe was saved by the Americans...

Without the Yanks, post-WWII Europe would have been ruled by either Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
I assume we agree on that point?
The American version of "liberation" was / is preferable to the Russian version.
I assume we also agree on this point?
If the American military presence saved Western Europe from Nazi or Stalinist domination, did not America thus rescue (most of) Europe in WWII?

My point regarding Dresden was that most Germans would agree that the Allies fighting from the Western Front did exert a significant military effect on Germany. Albert Speer himself commented that the British / American bomber campaign diverted vast resources from the Eastern Front. I believe the quote is along the lines of "Do you know what 20,000 (anti-aircraft) guns could have done on the Eastern front?"
I agree one should have a realistic appraisal of history, but (as a non American) I think the Americans should be objectively proud of their role in WWII.
(As an Aussie, I'm bloody thankful for their role in the Battle of the Coral Sea)

So, pull out of NATO now, bigger mess to clean up later.

[lukeh]

I don't think anyone is saying WW II was won solely because of America. They are saying it couldn't have been won without us. That may or may not have been true. I think Russia falls if Germany is able to fight a one front war. There are a lot of what ifs. What if Germany never attacks Russia? What if Japan never attacks the US which lead to Germany declaring war on us? Either way everyone did their part and the bad guys lost.

I see no reason to leave NATO. I also agree we need to get our act together before we start pointing fingers at Russia or trying to solve all the world's problems.

[aap1966]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

No other country could have pulled it off. Sorry.

Don't be.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Single aircraft? What does that mean.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Military_a ircraft_of_all_types

And the rest and refit comment is beyond the pale.

Single aircraft type and model, i.e Me 109 or P 51. Not totals of all types. Look that up.