Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. Army to withdraw 2 brigades from Europe

World Jan. 13, 2012 - 01:00PM JST ( 14 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

14 Comments

-3

noriyosan73Jan. 13, 2012 - 01:24PM JST

This is exactly what was predicted by noriyosan73 at least one year ago.(It is good to be on the inside.) Japan needs to prepare for the same reorganization and be pro-active in this situation. The upside is all the very expensive real estate will soon be available to developers and job creation will happen. The unemployment rate will rise for several months as reorganization happens, then fall dramatically.
0

MaboDofuIsSpicyJan. 13, 2012 - 01:57PM JST

Where are US troops in Africa?
1

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 13, 2012 - 02:27PM JST

Mabo, I think you need to ask a Kenyan that question. By the way, the EU is not living in fear of a Soviet Union anymore, makes more sense to station these troops say in Guatemala, Panama to try and control the flow of cocaine up into the USA.
0

KapunaJan. 13, 2012 - 03:12PM JST

Later, Panetta addressed about 500 soldiers and their family members at the sprawling Fort Bliss Army post, ensuring them that their benefits will not be affected by the announced budget cuts to the military.

That statement insures that military benefits will be drastically cut.
1

YuriOtaniJan. 13, 2012 - 03:34PM JST

America needs to bring them all home from Europe. Let the EU take care of itself and who is a threat to them? The Soviet Union is gone and it is a long way from Germany to Russia. The USA can partipitate in NATO but it is up to them to do the protection. A good point is this will make the Russians feel less nervous.
-2

FamilienproblemeJan. 13, 2012 - 04:47PM JST

3 to 4 thousand out of 77,917 is not nearly enough. I agree with Yuri. The Americans need to go home. Not redeployed in Asia, home.
-4

CletusJan. 13, 2012 - 05:46PM JST

There are two red lines that Tehran cannot cross, he said. “We can’t allow them to develop nuclear capabilities and the other red line is they can’t block the Strait of Hormuz,” the strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf.

Im sorry but who gave the US the right to say what a nation can and cant do in its own country. Fair enough they cant block the Strait of Hormuz but if Iran develops nukes how is that the US's business, did the US jump up and down when Israel built their nukes or any of the other nations. I didnt see the US threatening Pakistan when they built theirs. As for US action l think the US would be dreading being forced into a conflict with Iran because they will lose for certain. And that will mean the end for the US.
0

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 13, 2012 - 08:07PM JST

Cletus, it is not that easy. If Iran had no oil, the US would not care, but they do have oil, and lots of oil, so the US has to be more careful in what they do with Iran.
1

nandakandamandaJan. 13, 2012 - 09:33PM JST

Some of the stuff that Panetta is saying to his captive audience is not actually true. "The world community is united" (on Iran)...

er, no.

This feels like a deja vu.
1

NolivingJan. 14, 2012 - 01:21AM JST

Im sorry but who gave the US the right to say what a nation can and cant do in its own country. Fair enough they cant block the Strait of Hormuz but if Iran develops nukes how is that the US's business, did the US jump up and down when Israel built their nukes or any of the other nations. I didnt see the US threatening Pakistan when they built theirs. As for US action l think the US would be dreading being forced into a conflict with Iran because they will lose for certain. And that will mean the end for the US.

Are you seriously that ignorant? Iran signed the NPT, which is an international binding treaty that UN enforces, which means they can't develop nuclear weapons. Basically the US is stating that the world needs to enforce the NPT treaty with Iran. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons then the NPT is essentially worthless. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed the NPT as a result they have the right to build nuclear weapons. Actually the US did "threaten" pakistan. Before 9/11 Pakistan was heavily sanctioned by the US for developing nuclear weapons.
-1

TheQuestionJan. 14, 2012 - 01:32AM JST

America needs to bring them all home from Europe. Let the EU take care of itself and who is a threat to them? The Soviet Union is gone and it is a long way from Germany to Russia. The USA can partipitate in NATO but it is up to them to do the protection.

The problem is that nobody really wants that. The EU nations get the benefit of not needing to spend as much on national defense, the U.S has somewhere to put the troops, and everybody is buying guns and missiles from one another. Same with most other countries, the general deal is that if you host U.S troops you get the chance to buy U.S hardware.

As for US action l think the US would be dreading being forced into a conflict with Iran because they will lose for certain. And that will mean the end for the US.

Between US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf that would be a 3 front war that would work pretty much like the Iraq war. Even RT is under the impression that it would be one long bombing campaign with little or no actual troop involvement.
0

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 14, 2012 - 02:25AM JST

Nobody really wants what?? If you are selling guns, jet fighters etc..sure, you want to keep this cash cow their in the EU but at the same time, this is outdated, their in NO MORE SOVIET UNION, the Germans are our friends, no more Nazi Germany, most of Europe is one of the stablest areas in the entire world, so compare that to hot spots here in Asia, or Latin America, Africa, time to move on from Europe and put the troops where they are truly needed, not wasting our time and $$$$ there in Europe.
0

TheQuestionJan. 14, 2012 - 03:01AM JST

If you are selling guns, jet fighters etc..sure, you want to keep this cash cow their in the EU but at the same time, this is outdated, their in NO MORE SOVIET UNION

My atlas seems to support this assertion that the Soviet Union is no longer in existance. Doesn't stop the EU from wanting the best protection available. If there are US troops in your country and it gets attacked by another country, whether that means terrorists in country X or ultranationalists in territory Y it means you pretty much have automatic US backing and aid in the matter. In addition to the protection angle you also have a robust humanitarian aid component that Japan has certainly benefitted from, should a disaster of some sort befall Europe the US is already in place to lend aid.

There are no plans in place for any large scale withdrawl of troops, this seems like an efficiency issue rather than a troop volume issue. They want increased levels of rotation, the fact its only two brigades seems to support this.
0

WolfpackJan. 14, 2012 - 05:43AM JST

I agree that America should reduce it's overseas military bases substantially. The US is currently in the process of spending itself into oblivion adding $4 trillion in debt in just three years under President Obama. The total US debt will be $20 trillion three or four more years from now. Europe should learn to fend for itself from here on out. NATO served it's purpose and is destined to disband in the not too distant future.

However, this decision should cause the Japanese some concern given China's aggressive military buildup and broad territorial claims in recent years. With Japan itself in a huge debt hole, it can ill afford a reduced US commitment to Japans defense. Even a renewed focus towards the Pacific cannot be supported by the US's diminishing economic muscle.

Pledging that the Defense Department would not break faith with those who have served, Panetta said: “You are the heart and soul of the future of the military.”

It must have slipped Panetta's mind that the Obama administration has just announced that they are going to lay off tens of thousands of soldiers. Hope he has faith in those unemployment checks.