It's a cheap shot subby, but I giggled. +1

what_now: twitchfilm.net

That book was actually surprisingly decent.

NewportBarGuy: IdBeCrazyIf: That book was actually surprisingly decent.

Wait a goddamn second. That isn't a shop? Wow. I have to go the book store. Excuse me.

It also inspired one of my favorite entries (new window) on notalwaysright.

Nabb1: I'm all for bringing combat personnel home, but I understand the need for and have no problems with a long-term military presences for precisely the reasons we maintained them in Korea, Germany, Okinawa, and so on.

Why do we continue to maintain them in Korea, Germany, and Okinawa?

I mean, is it just part of a "just in case. we can be anywhere in the world in 2 days" deal?

Can't we do that just as well from America?

bulldg4life: I mean, is it just part of a "just in case. we can be anywhere in the world in 2 days" deal?

I would say it's less than 2 days for Germany & Okinawa. I would also think that if we had to extract folks from anywhere, these would be the places we could drop them off in a matter of hours.

Korea's an exception, as it's still technically a war zone.

Nabb1: Do you want to try to move all of the US military resources in Okinawa in two days? Do you want our ships to only resupply in the US?

I would not be opposed to keep more troops closer to home. If that involves not sending ships/planes/men all over creation even in non-war zones...then yes.

With the advances in technology and travel since, say, the 1980s...wouldn't there be better ways to move large forces instead of just leaving them scattered across the globe?

I'm just bringing this up because of a two part desire to have more troops stateside instead of scattered across the globe and to have a smaller constant military expenditure.

The constant state of readiness that we seem to have in so many places sure seems like an easy way to throw away millions of dollars.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I would say it's less than 2 days for Germany & Okinawa. I would also think that if we had to extract folks from anywhere, these would be the places we could drop them off in a matter of hours.

I'm not sure what you mean about extracting people. I mean, we have allies in these places, so OUR presence isn't as important as it would be in Iraq or the Middle East, correct?

It's not like we'd be 25 hours from a safe destination.

NewportBarGuy: IdBeCrazyIf: That book was actually surprisingly decent.

Wait a goddamn second. That isn't a shop? Wow. I have to go the book store. Excuse me.

Library.

/They still have those right?

And now for the weather. Tiffany?

/hotter than my popcorn

IdBeCrazyIf: what_now: twitchfilm.net

That book was actually surprisingly decent.

It really is. It's now one of my favorites.

Nabb1: Anyway, the logistics of having resources in place where you want to project a military presence and moving them on short notice are vastly different.

That's why I'm wondering about the advances in technology and travel that have taken place over the last several decades. I mean, we always hear about how the US has handy-dandy transport planes that can carry tanks all over and how the US has super-duper ships that can go anywhere in the world in 2 days....yet we still spread everybody out from here to the moon.

The idea of keeping bases in western europe and southeastern asia isn't as important as during the cold war, no?

Nabb1: If you have issues politically with military presence, obviously those are debatable, but there are millions of logistical and practical reasons we maintain those facilities. Some of these facilities are enormous and do a wide variety of operations.

I understand that. I just can't believe they are as cost-effective as they were 30 years ago.

Bring our troops in Germany home!

END WORLD WAR II NOW!!!

Isn't "New Dawn" kind of redundant? Doesn't the word "dawn" mean the start of a new day? Is there such a thing as an "Old Dawn"?

WalMartian: At least they didn't call it "Operation New Direction" - nothing worse than a nude erection.

I lol'd. Thanks for that.

Well done subby. +1

SleepingGnome: Is there such a thing as an "Old Dawn"

Say you were dating a girl named Dawn. The sex was great but eventually she got all naggy and didn't put out as much. You started to fight about stupid things amidst awkward attempts at reconciliation "to get things back the way they used to be".

One day, you run into an old High School friend, also named Dawn, who breathes fresh life into your libido. She laughs at your jokes, is hot as hell, and before long, it's back the way it used to be, but only with a new Dawn. Now, you have to call someone and let her know she's history. That would be Old Dawn.

Yep, PowerSlacker, pretty much THIS...

...except for the part where nobody will actually equate that banner with the speech the other night - even though they are pretty much the same thing: meaningless. 50,000 good people still there...it ain't the end of anything.

PeterPipersPickledPecker: Approves...

I see what you did there.

America is an Empire. An Empire in decline, but still an Empire. Of course armytroops will stay in Iraq for as long as we are all alive.

SleepingGnome: Isn't "New Dawn" kind of redundant? Doesn't the word "dawn" mean the start of a new day? Is there such a thing as an "Old Dawn"?

What an old Dawn might look like:

H31N0US: SleepingGnome: Is there such a thing as an "Old Dawn"

Say you were dating a girl named Dawn. The sex was great but eventually she got all naggy and didn't put out as much. You started to fight about stupid things amidst awkward attempts at reconciliation "to get things back the way they used to be".

One day, you run into an old High School friend, also named Dawn, who breathes fresh life into your libido. She laughs at your jokes, is hot as hell, and before long, it's back the way it used to be, but only with a new Dawn. Now, you have to call someone and let her know she's history. That would be Old Dawn.

That was such an obvious, bland, and tired joke, but you went with it. You really took it the distance and gave the effort it really didn't deserve. I think that you may have turned a fail into a win.

That's my question. I understand the argument of "we've still got 50,000 troops in there, dagnabbit!" But what's the threshold for "we're no longer at war... now"? It can't be troop levels because of the Korean peninsula example. Heck, we've had a constant military presence in Germany since 1945.

There's a difference. The troops in Germany, Korea, Okinawa, and Italy are stationed and living there, with their families (for the most part). And not drawing any extra pay for doing so.

The troops in Iraq are deployed there for a short period, without their families, and are drawing imminent danger and seperation pay.

I'm not saying the troops in Iraq shouldn't be there, they absolutely should be. But they can't be equated with the other examples.

the only twilight worth watching:

Guardians of a new clear dawn... Let the maps of war be drawn.

/Obscure?

NewportBarGuy: Will all the dead people rise from their graves and walk the earth? Because, they might be a little pissed and I want a heads up.

nekom: Only 50,000 troops remaining? Isn't that about as many as we had left in North Korea... today?

This is what victory looks like.