Bush to pull troops out of Europe and Asia?

[Taco John]

Bush to announce US troop pullouts from Europe, Asia on Monday: report

LONDON (AFP) Aug 14, 2004
The United States is expected to announce Monday that it is pulling 100,000 troops out of Europe and Asia, the Financial Times newspaper reported Saturday.
It said the withdrawals -- the largest restructuring of Washington's military presence abroad since World War II -- would be announced in a speech by US President George W. Bush.

Citing "people briefed on the plan" in a front-page story datelined London, the newspaper said two-thirds of the reductions would be in Europe, with 70,000 troops -- mostly from Germany -- being sent back to stateside bases.

"In Asia, the drawdown is expected to include the 3,500-soldier brigade from South Korea, recently deployed in Iraq, but will also include scaling down presences in several other countries in the region," it said.

Germany will still host the largest contingent of US troops in Europe, but the pullouts could nevertheless see the departure of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry Division, the Financial Times said.

[Taco John]

Holy crap! He might just swing my vote.

[Taco John]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=1&u=/nm/arms_usa_military_dc

[Taco John]

I am officially undecided.

I'm impressed with this move.

[DivineLegion]

bout damn time...

[watermock]

About time. I just worry about how ready these creampuffs are to go to Iraq. They better send them to Ft. Hood for a little training or they going to get picked off like ducks at a carnival.

WTF does Germany need our help anymore? Keep the hospitals and a couple air bases open and that's it. They have been feeding off our teat long enough.

[Rascal]

About freaking time. I really like this move.

[Crushaholic]

This move should have been made about 10 years ago, but it's good to see it finally happening.

[Rock Chalk]

I dont think it would have been wise ten years ago. Too soon after the cold war ended and there were still threats to democracy (and still are but mostly subsided) in the region. It is overdue IMO and this is a great move by Bush. Our bases abroad served their purpose and slowly I think its time we backed off.

[mosca]

right on. i like this move for all the reasons mentioned and also for the reason that it gives some of that liberal element in europe less of a reason to bitch and moan about u.s. military presence.

[watermock]

Only the French could place a naked man at the centerpiece of the Normandy Cemtetary. It's so typical. oh god, oh god oh god.

It's it's a disgrace so many have ignored. It doesn't show kids climing up the beaches while Vichey France didn't even revolt. They didn't even have the class to make a statue of a soldier. In an American mass cementary, this just knocks me out. There were no nude Frenchmen on Omaha Beach. The more I learn about these assholes the more I hate them.

http://www.abmc.gov/no5.jpg

[watermock]

http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/d-day/utah/images/Web%20-%20American%20memorial.jpg

How about this one Frenchie?

[watermock]

The French didn't even invade Normandy, but they have some naked idiot throwing his hands up in surrender asking for God to help him. It's literally hysterical.

[MLB]

Dude, you should seek some professional help.

[BroncoInferno]

I am officially undecided.

I'm impressed with this move.

This move alone would be enough to swing your vote to Bush, TJ? I agree, it's a good move, but not nearly enough to cover up for his other failings (getting us in the war for bogus reasons, fiscally irresponsible policies, piss-poor environmental record, etc.), IMHO. Considering the nature of your other posts regarding Bush, it seems a little surprising that this would be enough for you to give him serious consideration. Just curious as to your thinking.

[sutoazul]

Great move by Bush. Props when he deserves it!! No one said he's a 100% bad for this country.

[Meck77]

Wow 100,000. That's great news!

[alkemical]

Well then i guess this means that N. Korea isn't a problem... Or that maybe we are going to leave tiawan as a sitting duck...

See this is just lip service again - more lies from those in power.

[Crushaholic]

Well then i guess this means that N. Korea isn't a problem... Or that maybe we are going to leave tiawan as a sitting duck...

See this is just lip service again - more lies from those in power.

I've always been worried about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. If that happens and they really threaten S. Korea, it's going to be a situation that requires a lot more than the 3,500 troop force that we currently have deployed there. It's wasted manpower unless N. Korea actually gives us a reason to pay attention to them.

[patteeu]

I've always been worried about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. If that happens and they really threaten S. Korea, it's going to be a situation that requires a lot more than the 3,500 troop force that we currently have deployed there. It's wasted manpower unless N. Korea actually gives us a reason to pay attention to them.

You can stop worrying now. N. Korea already has nuclear weapons.

[Rock Chalk]

Its a no win situation. The Koreans want us out, but if we leave and North Korea goes nuclear, then its our fault (specifically BUSH'S fault) for pulling troops out of there. If we stay, we deal with protestors abroad and at home. We are not even pulling that many troops out of asia, most of the recall is in Europe.

But of course, you cant please everyone all the time and JOsh is just one of those people that will never be pleased by anything anyone in government does.

[watermock]

I've always been worried about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. If that happens and they really threaten S. Korea, it's going to be a situation that requires a lot more than the 3,500 troop force that we currently have deployed there. It's wasted manpower unless N. Korea actually gives us a reason to pay attention to them.

Actually, we allready moved 3,500 from Korea to Iraq, this just finalized it. We still have around 30,000? there to support S. Korea's army.

If they invade, the main problem will be enough ammo to hit rail thin, starving conscripts. What a pathetic country, boiling with paranoia.

[rodr88]

I spent time in Germany in the late 70's and early 80's. The liberals over there hated us then, and that hasn't changed at all. It's time we brought our troops home from Germany and let the Germans defend themselves. It's not like the french are going to invade anytime soon. (unless they figure they can surrender to the first German they see and ask for financial aid to rebuild france).

[Ballhawk]

I spent time in Germany in the late 70's and early 80's. The liberals over there hated us then, and that hasn't changed at all. It's time we brought our troops home from Germany and let the Germans defend themselves. It's not like the french are going to invade anytime soon. (unless they figure they can surrender to the first German they see and ask for financial aid to rebuild france).

Do not underestimate how quickly the French could arm themselves against Germany. There are many guns for sale in France on the Cheap, pratically new dropped once never been fired.

[rodr88]

ROTFLMAO You got that right.

[Taco John]

This move alone would be enough to swing your vote to Bush, TJ?


I didn't say my vote has swung toward Bush. I did say that I was undecided.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is an election year ploy. He hopes to be re-elected and then call them up for Iraq. Kerry has promised to start removing troops within 6 months after he is elected. I hope nobody bites on this one and praises Bush for bringing them home.

I'm hoping the American people can see through the smoke and mirrors by now.

If Clinton had done this, they'd have lynched him!

"Weakening our armed forces!"

If Kerry does this (once he's elected) they'll scream the same.

It's about time we cut back on the bases in Europe, but I think Dumbya and the chickenhawks are going to shift our whole military to the Middle East as part of the "Drang Noch Osten" those fascists are planning.

Even the bases in Europe... like Bondsteel... are in eastern Europe.

It's sure as hell ALL about OIL! Ain't no oil in Germany.

We have 725 bases overseas, and if each one can't pay it's way in Texas Tea... it's GONE!

And living in Hamburg is MUCH worse than Iraq. Count another hundred thousand votes for Kerry.

Unka Karl wants people to only hear the "70k troops coming home" part.

This is how little the Bush White House respects Americans.

Details about where they are coming from or ultimately going to, are for sensitive and thinking French-looking people.

Misunderestimating the voting public only works for so long. Without Rove, Smirk would be taking Utah, Idaho and Massabama, period. So he deserves a lot of credit for turing a useless unemployable punk into a political force. But it won't work twice.

And the saddest thing is that the SUV-Patriots are gonna be waving their flags and crowing about Bush bringing home 70,000 troops. It doesn't matter that he's bringing them home from where they're NOT getting shot at!

...The reality of the move is to "shuffle" troops from one place to another and enable Bush to send even more troops into the battle with Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he will not want to be seen directly transferring troops from Germany into Iraq and will almost certainly use the withdrawn troops to replace other soldiers who will be sent to Iraq. We believe the majority of those will come from bases in the US. The "shuffling" also provides a change of scenery for some of the troops, whose morale has fallen considerably over the last few months.

With a number of allies either pulling out from Iraq or reluctant to provide additional troops, Bush has found his military force being stretched to dangerous levels.

The Bush administration will of course mention that the plan by the Pentagon has been studied for more than a year, but in truth the "redeployment" idea has only become more serious in the last 2-3 months.

The moving of troops, the most comprehensive in years, should be seen more as a sign of desperation by Bush and not some plan to "reshape" the military for the new century! This continuing concentration of military in the Middle East is leaving the US more at risk at home from a major attack. America should remember that there are many other potential dangers in the world other than Iraq and Al-Qaeda and if it leaves its defenses bare, it may get to find out who the "others" are!

http://www.profindpages.com/news/2004/08/15/MN288.htm

[Meck77]

Good Lord LA. There is just no pleasing you. If 500,000 high paying jobs were created in 1 week and all of Al Qeada surrendered to Bush at once you still wouldn't be happy. You are entitled to your opinion but you are just way over the top man. You are the only Broncos fan I can think of that I wouldn't want to see at a Broncos tailgate in Denver. If you were here you wouldn't even care about the game. I bet you would be walking around with a sign around your neck that says "I HATE BUSH WHO CARES ABOUT THE BRONCOS".

I'd rather drink a beer with Crazyhorse the chef fan. Atleast the guy talks about ball even though he has no idea what he is saying either. :nono:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are the only Broncos fan I can think of that I wouldn't want to see at a Broncos tailgate in Denver.

Now there's a well-reasoned rebuttal to a political argument if I ever saw one.

[Meck77]

It pleases me that you hate Bush and life so much. Keep up the good work!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You do not have the ability to be objective at all.

You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to participate in an actual political debate, as evidenced by your failure to take on one single issue under discussion here--opting instead for the usual ad hominem.

Your life revolves around George Bush. It really is funny. Get a life.

Your life revolves around your compulsion to protect your favorite saudi sock puppet--irregardless of whether he is right or wrong on any given issue. Talk about someone who needs to 'get a life!'

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like someone's been doing some deleting.

It pleases me that you hate Bush and life so much.

Riiiiiight. I "hate life" because I don't support bush and point out his failures.

Another well-reasoned and compelling piece of logic.

You are only making yourself appear desperate here.

Do yourself a favor and quit before you embarrass yourself any further.

[patteeu]

This is an election year ploy. He hopes to be re-elected and then call them up for Iraq. Kerry has promised to start removing troops within 6 months after he is elected. I hope nobody bites on this one and praises Bush for bringing them home.

I'm hoping the American people can see through the smoke and mirrors by now.

If Clinton had done this, they'd have lynched him!

"Weakening our armed forces!"

If Kerry does this (once he's elected) they'll scream the same.

It's about time we cut back on the bases in Europe, but I think Dumbya and the chickenhawks are going to shift our whole military to the Middle East as part of the "Drang Noch Osten" those fascists are planning.

Even the bases in Europe... like Bondsteel... are in eastern Europe.

It's sure as hell ALL about OIL! Ain't no oil in Germany.

We have 725 bases overseas, and if each one can't pay it's way in Texas Tea... it's GONE!

And living in Hamburg is MUCH worse than Iraq. Count another hundred thousand votes for Kerry.

Unka Karl wants people to only hear the "70k troops coming home" part.

This is how little the Bush White House respects Americans.

Details about where they are coming from or ultimately going to, are for sensitive and thinking French-looking people.

Misunderestimating the voting public only works for so long. Without Rove, Smirk would be taking Utah, Idaho and Massabama, period. So he deserves a lot of credit for turing a useless unemployable punk into a political force. But it won't work twice.

And the saddest thing is that the SUV-Patriots are gonna be waving their flags and crowing about Bush bringing home 70,000 troops. It doesn't matter that he's bringing them home from where they're NOT getting shot at!

...The reality of the move is to "shuffle" troops from one place to another and enable Bush to send even more troops into the battle with Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he will not want to be seen directly transferring troops from Germany into Iraq and will almost certainly use the withdrawn troops to replace other soldiers who will be sent to Iraq. We believe the majority of those will come from bases in the US. The "shuffling" also provides a change of scenery for some of the troops, whose morale has fallen considerably over the last few months.

With a number of allies either pulling out from Iraq or reluctant to provide additional troops, Bush has found his military force being stretched to dangerous levels.

The Bush administration will of course mention that the plan by the Pentagon has been studied for more than a year, but in truth the "redeployment" idea has only become more serious in the last 2-3 months.

The moving of troops, the most comprehensive in years, should be seen more as a sign of desperation by Bush and not some plan to "reshape" the military for the new century! This continuing concentration of military in the Middle East is leaving the US more at risk at home from a major attack. America should remember that there are many other potential dangers in the world other than Iraq and Al-Qaeda and if it leaves its defenses bare, it may get to find out who the "others" are!

http://www.profindpages.com/news/2004/08/15/MN288.htm

LABF,

Could you make a trip back to your source website (Moscow news?) and ask the author what "Drang Noch Osten" means in this context. I don't speak German(?) and haven't ever heard the term before.

And while you are there, maybe you can find out who the "others" are and why drawing down forces in central Europe will make the US less secure.

[watermock]

The guy is like a programmed robot. It's incredible.

There is this robot over at Pravda.com named Attossa that was really similar. She was screaming about bringing the Czar back.

Listen to this all time classic from LABF:
And living in Hamburg is MUCH worse than Iraq. Count another hundred thousand votes for Kerry.

It's astounding. This fool couldn't even find Germany on a map yet alone Hamburg. My ancestors were from Hamburg, and it's been totally rebuilt, and much from American help. I am still terribly bitter about the firebombing of civilians, but WTF can I do about it as a full blooded German/Dutch Ancestry? Sue the Army Air Force for something that was totally rediculous?

Maybe I should sue them like the NAACP for Slavery. It's OVER. DONE. I'm so damn pissed I'm shaking.

Well it was, when we firebombed the place 60 years ago and I lost a few dozen relatives in what was once a peaceful agricultural city.

And you think I give a rats ass if we level Najif to glass? Think again.

Do you even have a clue what Hamburg looks like? It sure doesn't look like a warzone centered in a 5 square mile cemetary in Iraq where weapons are stored in tombs. You get further and further out there every day.

Seriously dude, your losing it. I don't know if your doing it for attention, or your genuinely insane. Why not move to China or Russia or Canada since things are so god damn horrible here?

Or are you mad because your skills relegate you to dipping french fries? Money is everywhere. The government is giving the stuff away at 4 percent for god's sake and your bitching.

Get on your moped and make a quick 50k working in the Hurricane zone and stop your damn bitching. God Damn, your worse than a castrated pig.

[Rascal]

I've always been worried about N. Korea developing nuclear weapons. If that happens and they really threaten S. Korea, it's going to be a situation that requires a lot more than the 3,500 troop force that we currently have deployed there. It's wasted manpower unless N. Korea actually gives us a reason to pay attention to them.

We are removing 3,500 not leaving 3,500 in S. Korea. They've been protesting our stay there for a while now. Fine, let them sign their own death certificate.

I'm really worried about China. In 10-20 years these guys are going to have an economy that rivals our and a military to boot plus with 4 times more people. Welcome to Cold War II.

[Taco John]

If Clinton had done this, they'd have lynched him!

"Weakening our armed forces!"




If Clinton would have done this, I'd have praised him too... It's a prudent move, especially in the wake of 9/11.

I think this is a great move. Plus it's one that forces Kerry to double back on his previous stance on this if he wants to keep up, so it's also politically expedient.

Slowly, I'm coming to grips that though I don't care for Bush, he's looking like the better choice between the two for the position of Commander in Chief. Kerry's problem is that he's to wishy washy, and there are a hundred examples of it.

[patteeu]

Looks like LABF has driven another voter into Bush's arms. Keep up the good work LABF.

[orangeatheist]

This is an election year ploy. He hopes to be re-elected and then call them up for Iraq. Kerry has promised to start removing troops within 6 months after he is elected. I hope nobody bites on this one and praises Bush for bringing them home.

Like I stated before, L.A., I like you but I disagree with you. You may be right that this move may be part of election year politics, but it's still the right thing to do. Kerry may or may not have done the same within six months of taking office. We'll never know now. I praise Bush for taking this action, regardless of his timing. I don't buy for a second that this was done purely to boost his favorability numbers. You even state later that the guys he's bringing home from comfy Hamburg are gonna turn on him come election day when they get re-deployed to Najaf.

I'm hoping the American people can see through the smoke and mirrors by now.

I try my best! And both of the salesman have their own show, by the way.

If Clinton had done this, they'd have lynched him!

"Weakening our armed forces!"

Perhaps, perhaps not. He did a lot of gutting here at home and now it looks to have been a poor move. Given the circumstances of the 1990's, if Clinton had done this the more military and conservative-minded pundits may likely have done more than a double-take. But in today's world, if Clinton was still President and had the hand current circumstances had dealt him, I don't think your forecast would be accurate. I know at least in my case that I'd praise any President --like em or hate em-- for pulling our troops from an ungrateful Europe.

If Kerry does this (once he's elected) they'll scream the same.

Like I said, we'll never know. Kerry can't do this 'cuz Bush already beat him to it. And, with that in mind, we'll never know what Kerry would have done if he does win the election in November. However, if Bush had not made this move now and Kerry did after having gained the office, I would have praised Kerry as I praise Bush today.

Would you have praised Kerry for making this move if he had done so in March '05? Or do you think it's an all around bad move regardless of which President called for it?

It's about time we cut back on the bases in Europe...

So you do praise Bush for this move?

...but I think Dumbya and the chickenhawks are going to shift our whole military to the Middle East as part of the "Drang Noch Osten" those fascists are planning.

I have no idea what "Drang Noch Osten" means (Google would've helped if my company didn't block all of the translation sites!) so I can't comment on your view of Bush's ultimate "fascist" design. However, I do know that the current crisis is in the Middle East and that this is the region requiring most of our military might. Certainly Germany doesn't require our presence nearly as much. What's wrong with filling a need?

It's sure as hell ALL about OIL! Ain't no oil in Germany.

Generalizations like that rarely gain acceptance from anyone other than the choir. I sure as hell don't beleive it's ALL about OIL.

We have 725 bases overseas, and if each one can't pay it's way in Texas Tea... it's GONE!

Come on, dude. You don't really believe that, do you?

And living in Hamburg is MUCH worse than Iraq. Count another hundred thousand votes for Kerry.

Which undercuts your assertion that this is purely a political move by the Bush camp.

Unka Karl wants people to only hear the "70k troops coming home" part.

This is how little the Bush White House respects Americans.

Details about where they are coming from or ultimately going to, are for sensitive and thinking French-looking people.

Misunderestimating the voting public only works for so long.

I think it is you who underestimates and misunderstands the voting public. I don't think people are so stupid as to think that the troops being brought back from Europe and Asia are simply going to go home for a nice dinner and then spend time playing poker at the local bases. Everyone not living under a rock knows where our troops are engaged and everyone knows that it isn't in Germany.

[Rohirrim]

Now, if only Bush would line those troops up along our border with Mexico - hell, even I might vote for him.

j/k

[patteeu]

...
I have no idea what "Drang Noch Osten" means (Google would've helped if my company didn't block all of the translation sites!) so I can't comment on your view of Bush's ultimate "fascist" design. ...

According to google, "Drang Noch Osten" means "Urge still the East" in German. That doesn't help me, but if you figure it out let me know.

[orangeatheist]

According to google, "Drang Noch Osten" means "Urge still the East" in German. That doesn't help me, but if you figure it out let me know.

Hmmmm....eehhhh...nope. Still don't get it. But, in the context of L.A.'s quote I can hazard a guess:

1.) '...shift[ing] our whole military to the Middle East as part of the "Urge Still the East" those fascists are planning' may mean that the US military will simply continue to march Eastward in their determination to obliterate contenteous Arab nations and this influx of former European and Asian troops simply add to that contingent.

How did I do L.A.?

[patteeu]

Hmmmm....eehhhh...nope. Still don't get it. But, in the context of L.A.'s quote I can hazard a guess:

1.) '...shift[ing] our whole military to the Middle East as part of the "Urge Still the East" those fascists are planning' may mean that the US military will simply continue to march Eastward in their determination to obliterate contenteous Arab nations and this influx of former European and Asian troops simply add to that contingent.

How did I do L.A.?

That sounds like a pretty good guess to me. If that's the case, I'm not sure I have much problem with Drang Noch Osten.

[orangeatheist]

That sounds like a pretty good guess to me. If that's the case, I'm not sure I have much problem with Drang Noch Osten.

:giggle: Neither do I.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If Clinton would have done this, I'd have praised him too... It's a prudent move, especially in the wake of 9/11.

I think this is a great move. Plus it's one that forces Kerry to double back on his previous stance on this if he wants to keep up, so it's also politically expedient.

Slowly, I'm coming to grips that though I don't care for Bush, he's looking like the better choice between the two for the position of Commander in Chief. Kerry's problem is that he's to wishy washy, and there are a hundred examples of it.

There are no troops being moved from anywhere until at least 2006 under Bush's announced plan. No relief for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number now is 70,000 or less. This is, as someone else stated, politics in an election year.

[alkemical]

Its a no win situation. The Koreans want us out, but if we leave and North Korea goes nuclear, then its our fault (specifically BUSH'S fault) for pulling troops out of there. If we stay, we deal with protestors abroad and at home. We are not even pulling that many troops out of asia, most of the recall is in Europe.

But of course, you cant please everyone all the time and JOsh is just one of those people that will never be pleased by anything anyone in government does.


not true.... stop lying, cut my taxes to where i pay 15%, leave religion out of gov't - would be steps to make me happier.

hmmmm... make it so congress doesn't get to vote its own pay raises, balanced budget amendment and tighten boarders and i'd be cool for a while.


you just support a big government and want a theocracy, where i want true democracy (not a republic)


see libertarians could have red/blue states for real. if you don't like a lefty state like cali - you could move to a righty state like kansas - instead of imposing crap on everyone - you can have choice.

i know choice & freedom are something your kind cannot handle alec - but we all shouldn't be punished for idiots that roam around.

[Maximus]

Bush to announce US troop pullouts from Europe, Asia on Monday: report

LONDON (AFP) Aug 14, 2004
The United States is expected to announce Monday that it is pulling 100,000 troops out of Europe and Asia, the Financial Times newspaper reported Saturday.
It said the withdrawals -- the largest restructuring of Washington's military presence abroad since World War II -- would be announced in a speech by US President George W. Bush.

Citing "people briefed on the plan" in a front-page story datelined London, the newspaper said two-thirds of the reductions would be in Europe, with 70,000 troops -- mostly from Germany -- being sent back to stateside bases.

"In Asia, the drawdown is expected to include the 3,500-soldier brigade from South Korea, recently deployed in Iraq, but will also include scaling down presences in several other countries in the region," it said.

Germany will still host the largest contingent of US troops in Europe, but the pullouts could nevertheless see the departure of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry Division, the Financial Times said.

So, he's gonna pull them out... Who wants to bet that they wind up in Iraq 4321~

[MLB]

You do not have the ability to be objective at all.

You obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to participate in an actual political debate, as evidenced by your failure to take on one single issue under discussion here--opting instead for the usual ad hominem.

Your life revolves around George Bush. It really is funny. Get a life.

Your life revolves around your compulsion to protect your favorite saudi sock puppet--irregardless of whether he is right or wrong on any given issue. Talk about someone who needs to 'get a life!'

irregardless?

That sounds like something Dubya would say.

You really shouldn't question someone's intellectual capacity if you're going to use such words.

[watermock]

Irregardless of whether Irregardless is a proper word, it's commonly used as regardless, with an emphasis of Irr, or error, implying a dual meaning. Proper would be regardless of the argument that may be valid, your still in error, or that the argument is not A Priori, or irrelevant. It's a combination of irrelevant and regardless and commonly used.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And while you are there, maybe you can find out who the "others" are and why drawing down forces in central Europe will make the US less secure.

Aside from the fact that this is obviously just another political ploy by BushCo, here are the obvious reasons why the withdrawl isn't a good idea:

We're facing a global war on terror with Al-Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces.
Removing US forces from the Korean peninsula could send a dangerous signal of weak US resolve" to North Korea's Kim Jong-Il at a crucial moment in efforts to persuade him to scrap his nuclear weapons programs.
A pullout from Europe would further strain relations with NATO allies, would be interpreted as the distancing of the US from NATO, and will set back US efforts to encourage greater NATO participation in Iraq.
It will increase the burden on many military families as troops will be separated from their families during more frequent and unaccompanied deployments to Eastern Europe.
It's not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to move these troops.
This move would cause a weakening of our traditional ties to our closest allies just when we need them most.
Germany, South Korea, and Japan, which will see the biggest cuts, all spend billions of dollars to support the troops


So, he's gonna pull them out... Who wants to bet that they wind up in Iraq

Props to you for having the intelligence to raise the question, i.e., what happens next for these troops?

Looks like LABF has driven another voter into Bush's arms. Keep up the good work LABF.

Riiiiiight.

Like TJ needed any help from me to push him off the fence.

If just this one issue alone (coupled with a lack of familiarity w/ Kerry's record and proposals) is enough to sway you, then you deserve everything you're going to get if Smirk gets another term.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

irregardless?

That sounds like something Dubya would say.

You really shouldn't question someone's intellectual capacity if you're going to use such words.

It's a perfectly good word.

Look it up in the dictionary while I'm "questioning your intellectual capacity." :)

[watermock]

And while you are there, maybe you can find out who the "others" are and why drawing down forces in central Europe will make the US less secure.

Aside from the fact that this is obviously just another political ploy by BushCo, here are the obvious reasons why the withdrawl isn't a good idea:

We're facing a global war on terror with Al-Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces.

I should of seen this coming. Hey dimwit: We are redeploying resources. We don't need 200,000 troops in Germany. Since they seem content after we rebuilt their country, can we leave now?

Removing US forces from the Korean peninsula could send a dangerous signal of weak US resolve" to North Korea's Kim Jong-Il at a crucial moment in efforts to persuade him to scrap his nuclear weapons programs.

Are you kidding me? We have a carrier in the region that can destroy that craphole in one day. If they want to play the nuclear war, so can we. What do you want to do? I evacuate and turn it to glass A war with N.Korea will be nuclear Dimwit.

A pullout from Europe would further strain relations with NATO allies, would be interpreted as the distancing of the US from NATO, and will set back US efforts to encourage greater NATO participation in Iraq.

Why is that? They don't even want us there, and the country is stable, has nuclear weapons and is perfectly able to defend itself with western technology. I wouldn't worry about protecting the Germans, they seem to get fiesty. Now the french might get overrun by Switzerland I could see.

It will increase the burden on many military families as troops will be separated from their families during more frequent and unaccompanied deployments to Eastern Europe.

Yes, it will be horrible as they arrive in the United States. I can see the tears.

It's not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to move these troops.

Yes of course. Pulling out troops costs money. That's why we didn't keep a standing army after WW2, it would of cost too much. What are you smoking?

This move would cause a weakening of our traditional ties to our closest allies just when we need them most.

Why do we just when we need them the most exactly? Are you talking about a 60 year old war, or the 15 year old war that are both over? Since both France and Germany sat back and sassy, can't they take care of themselves? We don't have to defend Europe, we have to defend against Radical Islamic Fascism.

Germany, South Korea, and Japan, which will see the biggest cuts, all spend billions of dollars to support the troops


I can't even believe your posting this one. LOL. for real. It's the USA that spends Billions you Dimwit. What do you think we are doing, marching into town and demanding money? Fact of the matter is we put Billions of Dollars into Germany, South Korea and Japan. It's the total opposite. God your an idiot.

So, he's gonna pull them out... Who wants to bet that they wind up in Iraq

Well, they are called troops are they not? Our troops in Iraq are overworked and tired. We need to get at least 30,000 trained immediately for some relief. I suppose your against relieving out troops at the front? I want them trained at FT. Hood immediately, but I don't run the Army. It's called rotation dimwit.

There is only one problem with the German redeployment, and that is it it gets any hotter in Iraq, it will be harder to bring the armor to bear. We simply don't need a standing army against the Russians that are now 2000 miles away from the Former East Germany, or Poland. And the Russians have pretty much their own problems to worry about their own survival.

Every argument destroyed. The only argument would be that keeping troops in Germany would be efficient in a wider Middle East War, which this Dimwit doesn't even consider.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This move alone would be enough to swing your vote to Bush, TJ? I agree, it's a good move, but not nearly enough to cover up for his other failings (getting us in the war for bogus reasons, fiscally irresponsible policies, piss-poor environmental record, etc.), IMHO. Considering the nature of your other posts regarding Bush, it seems a little surprising that this would be enough for you to give him serious consideration. Just curious as to your thinking.

Major rep!

Glad somebody is awake.

:thumbsup:

To imply that this latest BushCo move somehow offsets all the damage bush has done on every other front would be analogous to watching a football team with a 1-10 record score its only points in a game by kicking a field goal with the clock at 1:00 and saying "I guess they're not a bad team after all."

[orangeatheist]

irregardless?

That sounds like something Dubya would say.

You really shouldn't question someone's intellectual capacity if you're going to use such words.

It's a perfectly good word.

Look it up in the dictionary while I'm "questioning your intellectual capacity." :)

From www.dictionary.com

ir·re·gard·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.


....you were saying.....?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

....you were saying.....?

From the definition you provided:

...when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing.

I'm all about "casual" and "nonstandard." ;)

[patteeu]

And while you are there, maybe you can find out who the "others" are and why drawing down forces in central Europe will make the US less secure.

Aside from the fact that this is obviously just another political ploy by BushCo, here are the obvious reasons why the withdrawl isn't a good idea:
* We're facing a global war on terror with Al-Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces.

Yet you are in favor of pulling back our forces from Iraq where we are actually face to face with our enemy.

* Removing US forces from the Korean peninsula could send a dangerous signal of weak US resolve" to North Korea's Kim Jong-Il at a crucial moment in efforts to persuade him to scrap his nuclear weapons programs.

Our troops in North Korea have become more of a deterrent to us than to NK. As long as they are there, they are at risk if we decide to take out NK's nuclear capability by force. If Kim Jong-Il starts to think we've reverted to Clinton-era weakness, we can send him photos of the last guy who called GWB's bluff getting his mouth inspected after he was pulled out of a spider hole in Iraq.

* A pullout from Europe would further strain relations with NATO allies, would be interpreted as the distancing of the US from NATO, and will set back US efforts to encourage greater NATO participation in Iraq.

It might put further strain on our relations with Germany because they stand to lose a pretty large income stream, but I don't see any problem with our relations with NATO at large. In fact, many other NATO countries in Eastern Europe will be happy as we deploy smaller, more mobile units to their countries.

*It will increase the burden on many military families as troops will be separated from their families during more frequent and unaccompanied deployments to Eastern Europe.

Military families will be just fine living at bases in the US rather than in Germany.

* It's not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to move these troops.

Of course it will cost money to abandon these bases and move the troops. For one thing, this move isn't motivated by cost savings, it is motivated by changing security needs. Not only that, but as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the move will result in more US dollars being spent in the US economy rather than in Germany's. That's an economic fringe benefit (as opposed to a cost) and it is the main reason the German's don't want us to leave.

* This move would cause a weakening of our traditional ties to our closest allies just when we need them most.

You are repeating yourself. Straining ties with allies has already been covered.

* Germany, South Korea, and Japan, which will see the biggest cuts, all spend billions of dollars to support the troops.

They spend billions because they get a return on that investment in the form of economic activity generated by our troops. In other words, they get more benefit from the money we spend in their country than it costs them to build roads to our bases. In any event, they won't need to spend their billions anymore and they can invest it elsewhere.

_______________

You answered one of my three questions. I was actually more interested in the other two. Maybe you can take a shot at those:

1) Who are the "others" that we need to be afraid of if we redeploy our troops?

2) What does "Drang Noch Osten" mean in the context of your post?

[orangeatheist]

....you were saying.....?

From the definition you provided:

...when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing.

I'm all about "casual" and "nonstandard." ;)

Therefore, it's not "perfect," is it? ;D

[BroncoInferno]

I should of seen this coming. Hey dimwit: We are redeploying resources. We don't need 200,000 troops in Germany. Since they seem content after we rebuilt their country, can we leave now?



Are you kidding me? We have a carrier in the region that can destroy that craphole in one day. If they want to play the nuclear war, so can we. What do you want to do? I evacuate and turn it to glass A war with N.Korea will be nuclear Dimwit.


Why is that? They don't even want us there, and the country is stable, has nuclear weapons and is perfectly able to defend itself with western technology. I wouldn't worry about protecting the Germans, they seem to get fiesty. Now the french might get overrun by Switzerland I could see.



Yes, it will be horrible as they arrive in the United States. I can see the tears.



Yes of course. Pulling out troops costs money. That's why we didn't keep a standing army after WW2, it would of cost too much. What are you smoking?



Why do we just when we need them the most exactly? Are you talking about a 60 year old war, or the 15 year old war that are both over? Since both France and Germany sat back and sassy, can't they take care of themselves? We don't have to defend Europe, we have to defend against Radical Islamic Fascism.



I can't even believe your posting this one. LOL. for real. It's the USA that spends Billions you Dimwit. What do you think we are doing, marching into town and demanding money? Fact of the matter is we put Billions of Dollars into Germany, South Korea and Japan. It's the total opposite. God your an idiot.



Well, they are called troops are they not? Our troops in Iraq are overworked and tired. We need to get at least 30,000 trained immediately for some relief. I suppose your against relieving out troops at the front? I want them trained at FT. Hood immediately, but I don't run the Army. It's called rotation dimwit.

There is only one problem with the German redeployment, and that is it it gets any hotter in Iraq, it will be harder to bring the armor to bear. We simply don't need a standing army against the Russians that are now 2000 miles away from the Former East Germany, or Poland. And the Russians have pretty much their own problems to worry about their own survival.

Every argument destroyed. The only argument would be that keeping troops in Germany would be efficient in a wider Middle East War, which this Dimwit doesn't even consider.

I wonder if Mock has realized that LABF put him on ignore, and that he might as well be giving his rebuttal (if you consider name name-calling, ramblings that only make a cogent argument by accident, followed by a pathetic self-declaration of victory with regards to the argument a "rebuttal") to one of those sky fairies orangeatheist keeps talking about.

For a counter-argument that's well-written and worth addressing, see post #55 by patteeu.

[orangeatheist]

I wonder if Mock has realized that LABF put him on ignore, and that he might as well be giving his rebuttal...to one of those sky fairies orangeatheist keeps talking about.

;D

[Maximus]

Well, they are called troops are they not? Our troops in Iraq are overworked and tired. We need to get at least 30,000 trained immediately for some relief. I suppose your against relieving out troops at the front? I want them trained at FT. Hood immediately, but I don't run the Army. It's called rotation dimwit.

There is only one problem with the German redeployment, and that is it it gets any hotter in Iraq, it will be harder to bring the armor to bear. We simply don't need a standing army against the Russians that are now 2000 miles away from the Former East Germany, or Poland. And the Russians have pretty much their own problems to worry about their own survival.


Agreed. The problem is that it wasn't his idea. John Kerry talked about getting 40,000 new troops. GWB hears this and his people start thinking... hummm that sounds good where can we get them from... It's all politically motivated now he has an answer for Kerry's statement.

[watermock]

The because the dimwit has me on ignore doesn't keep me from refuting his crap. If I have to read it, I can respond to it. I don't crap and run. I read and consider everything and anything anyone says. I'm not blaming myself for his cowardice. He lost, period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder if Mock has realized that LABF put him on ignore, and that he might as well be giving his rebuttal (if you consider name name-calling, ramblings that only make a cogent argument by accident, followed by a pathetic self-declaration of victory with regards to the argument a "rebuttal") to one of those sky fairies orangeatheist keeps talking about.

For a counter-argument that's well-written and worth addressing, see post #55 by patteeu.


Hilarious!

I just did what his bartender should have done a long time ago, viz., cut his raggedy ass off.

LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yet you are in favor of pulling back our forces from Iraq where we are actually face to face with our enemy.

When the fÙck did I say anything like this?

Have you been smoking dirt weed?

What I am for is John Kerry's plan to internationalize the force in Iraq so that we don't have to go it alone where the costs--both in human life and in dollars and cents--are concerned.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Agreed. The problem is that it wasn't his idea. John Kerry talked about getting 40,000 new troops. GWB hears this and his people start thinking... hummm that sounds good where can we get them from... It's all politically motivated now he has an answer for Kerry's statement.

Monkey see, monkey do.

:)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/troop-pokey.gif

[watermock]

What I am for is John Kerry's plan to internationalize the force in Iraq so that we don't have to go it alone where the costs--both in human life and in dollars and cents--are concerned.

This Dimwit makes 4 post seperate posts. He managed to forumlate one post that even warrants rebuke.

Is he living in 2003? Or didn't Al Queda bomb the Spaniards? And Polish?

Didn't we ask for help? Didn't we wait for approval while Saddam stashed his WMD in Syria?

Your an idiot. Kerry doesn't have any damn plan whatsoever, just a bunch of assumptions.

[watermock]

Monkey see, monkey do.

:)

Hey Dimwit, Max was agreeing with me.

[watermock]

Just another thing dimwit, all you ever do is make cartoons. It's not the hokie pokie.

9 of 10 agree with the move. We are not severing ties anywhere. We are not going to "spend billions" and we are not going to entice Russia to invade thru Poland.

Your an idiot.

[patteeu]

Yet you are in favor of pulling back our forces from Iraq where we are actually face to face with our enemy.

When the fÙck did I say anything like this?

Have you been smoking dirt weed?

What I am for is John Kerry's plan to internationalize the force in Iraq so that we don't have to go it alone where the costs--both in human life and in dollars and cents--are concerned.

Kerry's "plan" is to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq and replace them with troops from countries who have said that they won't commit troops under any circumstances.

Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan."

[F]oreign leaders are making it clear they don't want to add enough of their own troops to allow U.S. forces to scale back to a minority share in Iraq, as Kerry has proposed.

The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. "We are not going to send anybody there, and that's all there is to say," Denisov said.

Even if Kerry uses his overwhelming charisma to charm foreign leaders, they will still have to overcome the sentiments of their electorate.

Kerry's proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess.

"I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.

"Some Europeans are rather concerned that Mr. Kerry might have expectations for relief that are going to be hard to meet," said one senior European diplomat in a statement echoed in several capitals.

Let's assume that Kerry is unsuccessful at internationalizing the effort in Iraq. Where do you stand under that scenario LABF? Do you want to keep US troops there as long as necessary (lets assume 5 or 10 years) or do you want to pull them out earlier?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20040809/ts_latimes/alliesnotinformationonkerrystroopsplan

[enjolras]

The French didn't even invade Normandy, but they have some naked idiot throwing his hands up in surrender asking for God to help him. It's literally hysterical.

There were most definitely french troops in the invasion you twit. Oh ya, and many french resistance troops directly involved in sabotage and support of the paratroopers inland as well. Some of the most dangerous work was done by the French on June 6, 1944...

[Rascal]

Some of the most dangerous work was done by the French on June 6, 1944...

Screw that.

I think going up a beach in a piece of crap machine that opens the door toward the enemy is more dangerous then that.

[enjolras]

Screw that.

I think going up a beach in a piece of crap machine that opens the door toward the enemy is more dangerous then that.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_French_Forces

The French did that... an entire division landed at Normandy.

Oh ya, they also blew up train tracks, sabotaged bridges, and destroyed German supplies on the night leading up to the invasion. All of this done effectively behind enemy lines. The ones that where caught where executed en-masse on the morning of the invasion just miles from the invasion site.

[Rascal]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_French_Forces

The French did that... an entire division landed at Normandy.

Oh ya, they also blew up train tracks, sabotaged bridges, and destroyed German supplies on the night leading up to the invasion. All of this done effectively behind enemy lines. The ones that where caught where executed en-masse on the morning of the invasion just miles from the invasion site.

And the same can be said of American paratroopers and other US special forces (not special forces as they are today).

Yes I knew about the French having a division landing at Normandy. I'm disagreeing with you that you think, maybe not think but you did say, that the French did more dangerous stuff during that historic day then the Americans or Brits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only chickenhawks like Rascal downplay someone else's military service.

I'm still waiting to hear the announcement that rascal has decided to join the marines and go to Iraq to demonstrate his support for his Oil Emperor and the "war on terra."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wartime Withdrawal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6699-2004Aug16.html

"Now the administration would pull out about one-third of the 37,500 troops stationed in South Korea and about half of the 100,000 based in Europe. This is a particularly bad idea in Asia. North Korea has pressed for U.S. troop withdrawals for years; now that it is misbehaving in the nuclear field, it receives a reward, and for no concessions."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Holbrooke on the troop redeployments

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/international/16CND-BUSH.html

Wondering about Bush's plan to realign American troops around the world? Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke explained the consequences in a statement released today:

Today's announcement will, if implemented, weaken America's national security. American troop withdrawals at this time will send exactly the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries around the world — that America is pulling back from its most vital national security interests.

In Korea, it violates common sense to withdraw forces at a delicate moment in negotiations with North Korea — a dangerous dictatorship that really has WMD.

In Europe, a withdrawal weakens the NATO alliance and will inevitably lead to less cooperation with our closest allies just when we need more in the war on terrorism and Iraq.

This will not improve our ability to move forces quickly to hot spots. On the contrary, it will make us slower to respond.

And the redeployments will not save any money. In fact, this will result in significant increases in costs, and the very large host country contributions in Germany, Japan, and Korea, and elsewhere will be lost.

The timing is especially strange, when the administration should be engaged in an effort to rally other nations behind us in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. No matter what the official explanation, it would appear that this is related to the fact that U.S. forces are now stretched too thin around the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/golfing-like.jpg

[watermock]

You allready posted this, and the vast majority feel that Germany can take care of itself just fine since they are still so damned shell shocked at the wrath of American power from 60 years ago they can barely peek out their windows.

You can come out now Germany. Leave it up to LABF to whine with a former UN Delegate. These troop movements were planned years ago.

How is "our national security" comprimised exactly? Are we to believe the Germans can't hold up their part to defend themselves, or are we to believe that they are still an occupied country that needs a boot on it's neck? He doesn't even make an argument, just an assumption.

I love the "delicate negotiations" part with N. Korea. Wasn't it these same negotiations with the Clinton administration that now has N. Korea with Nuclear Missles? We don't need troops, we need a carrier group. And we have one right on their neck.

Richard Holbrook is a known fool.

[patteeu]

Wartime Withdrawal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6699-2004Aug16.html

"Now the administration would pull out about one-third of the 37,500 troops stationed in South Korea and about half of the 100,000 based in Europe. This is a particularly bad idea in Asia. North Korea has pressed for U.S. troop withdrawals for years; now that it is misbehaving in the nuclear field, it receives a reward, and for no concessions."

Have you ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" We shouldn't leave troops at the DMZ just because NK wants them to withdraw. If our military planners believe redeployment makes sense we should do it regardless of what NK thinks.

[watermock]

When the American Congress launched an investigation in 1996 into United States involvement in the illegal transport of arms from Iran to BiH via Croatia, three of the highest ranking Croatian officials, Franjo Greguric, Mate Granic and Gojko Susak, declined the invitation to testify before the investigative body of Congress. Nacional has learned from reliable diplomatic sources that in so doing, they protected Petar Galbraith, former American Ambassador to Croatia, from taking personal responsibility for the affair. These three high ranking officials, in refusing to testify, contributed to the end result of the investigation, that the direct involvement in the affair by Galbraith; Charles Redman, special advisor for the Balkans; Bill Clinton; Anthony Lake, Clinton’s advisor for national security and Strobe Talbot and Richard Holbrook.

Go play in the sandbox now.

[watermock]

Has it occured to you that we might be inviting them in?

I'm not leaving BeezleBub at the mouse hole when I'm about to spray Raid or Drop some Rat Pellets.

He comes home every night and complains there are no mice.

I could take him out to the farm where we have war conditions with badgers, rats and mice and you name it. He has his shoe string. I'm getting an army of cats built up for the elevator and old house. But it's touch and go. I think Al Sadr is in the Barn and has friends. I don't like using poisons. I am going to bring in some cats to police the area.

The African Wildcats (Beezer's line) and Persians, (Cute but pretty mean) should be able to mop up operations. Beezer has been taken to rear guard and off the front line. The amount of grain around the farm just about anything you can imagine shows up for a bite.

[patteeu]

Holbrooke on the troop redeployments

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/international/16CND-BUSH.html

Wondering about Bush's plan to realign American troops around the world? Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke explained the consequences in a statement released today:

Today's announcement will, if implemented, weaken America's national security. American troop withdrawals at this time will send exactly the wrong signal to our allies and adversaries around the world — that America is pulling back from its most vital national security interests.

In Korea, it violates common sense to withdraw forces at a delicate moment in negotiations with North Korea — a dangerous dictatorship that really has WMD.

In Europe, a withdrawal weakens the NATO alliance and will inevitably lead to less cooperation with our closest allies just when we need more in the war on terrorism and Iraq.

This will not improve our ability to move forces quickly to hot spots. On the contrary, it will make us slower to respond.

And the redeployments will not save any money. In fact, this will result in significant increases in costs, and the very large host country contributions in Germany, Japan, and Korea, and elsewhere will be lost.

The timing is especially strange, when the administration should be engaged in an effort to rally other nations behind us in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. No matter what the official explanation, it would appear that this is related to the fact that U.S. forces are now stretched too thin around the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps we are trying to send a message to our allies in the negotiations (SK, China, Japan, and Russia) rather than NK. They need to realize that NK is a bigger threat to them than it is to us at this point. Maybe if they start to realize that the US isn't necessarily going to provide a shield for them they will start to put some serious pressure on NK to abandon it's nuclear program.

[watermock]

Screw this hysteria. We have a Battlegroup that can deliver hell to these savages, and another within sailing distance in Hawaii or Australia. We have the battle groups to lay down withering death. It's ignorant hysteria.

However, I am redeploying cats from one farm to another to the elevator. They are pretty dug in, but I am not going to use chemical weapons, I prefer the approach that we let the vermin and kitties fight it out mano mano. I don't want the cats eating vermin and getting sick.

Damn Badger has snuck up behind me tho. That sucker needs the Model 12.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A look at the hidden troop realignment...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/troops.html

Must see!

LOL

[watermock]

:spamattac

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.freep.com/voices/edit_art/080104_mt.jpg

[watermock]

I love the detailed analysis from Mr. Butt and Paste. I mean, get real. Every time this clown gets backed into a corner he either starts the same thread or posts a cartoon.

I don't want to bother. I have been thru this twice. There is a moderator involved.

That's fine with me. Whatever. I allready know the ground rules and how some are given liberty. I am just responding. I am not the agenda.