TOKYO (Reuters) - Angry lawmakers on Japan's southern island of Okinawa called for progress on shrinking the U.S. military presence and tighter discipline among U.S. troops after the arrest of a Marine on suspicion of raping a schoolgirl.

 

The 38-year-old Marine, Tyrone Hadnott, based at Camp Courtney on the island, was arrested on Monday on suspicion of raping the 14-year-old Japanese girl when the two were in a car on Sunday. He has denied raping the girl but acknowledged forcing her to kiss him, an Okinawa police spokesman said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080214/ts_nm/japan_okinawa_rape_dc

We don't need to have bases in Japan, Germany, or Korea. Bring them home and put the $$$$ into the US infrastructure.

We don't need to have bases in Japan, Germany, or Korea. Bring them home and put the $$$$ into the US infrastructure.

 

Agreed!!! I'm sure we still have troops in Vietnam as well.

Agreed!!! I'm sure we still have troops in Vietnam as well.

 

We don't need to have bases in Japan, Germany, or Korea. Bring them home and put the $$$$ into the US infrastructure.

 

 

I disagree with both of you. We need bases abroad as staging areas for our aircraft and so we can deploy troops anywhere in the world we need to as rapidly as possible.

 

For what it's worth though, if a country has serious problems with our presence there I don't have that much trouble with relocating those troops.

Should someone point out that a Democrat President got us into that country and we have stayed there for over 60 years.

 

I am joking for anyone gets mad at me.

Should someone point out that a Democrat President got us into that country and we have stayed there for over 60 years.

 

I am joking for anyone gets mad at me.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Zing!

I disagree with both of you. We need bases abroad as staging areas for our aircraft and so we can deploy troops anywhere in the world we need to as rapidly as possible.

 

For what it's worth though, if a country has serious problems with our presence there I don't have that much trouble with relocating those troops.

:thumb:

I disagree with both of you. We need bases abroad as staging areas for our aircraft and so we can deploy troops anywhere in the world we need to as rapidly as possible.

 

For what it's worth though, if a country has serious problems with our presence there I don't have that much trouble with relocating those troops.

 

We have 30,000 troops in South Korea. If the 2 million-man north korean army invaded they would roll over our troops.

 

We have aircraft carriers that can put jets over any part of the globe and stealth bombers that can fly from Missouri to any part of the world without being seen. We need maybe one airbase in Europe and one in Asia with appropriate hospital facilities. We don't need thousands of troops stationed in Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Let the Japanese build their military and bring the troops home.

We have 30,000 troops in South Korea. If the 2 million-man north korean army invaded they would roll over our troops.

 

We have aircraft carriers that can put jets over any part of the globe and stealth bombers that can fly from Missouri to any part of the world without being seen. We need maybe one airbase in Europe and one in Asia with appropriate hospital facilities. We don't need thousands of troops stationed in Germany, South Korea, and Japan. Let the Japanese build their military and bring the troops home.

 

Okay, here is the deal. Those 30,000 troops are there as an excuse for us to intervene in a conflict in Korea plain and simple. They kill American troops, we intervene. It's cold and calculating but that is how it is.

 

As to your Aricraft Carrier comment, it strikes me that you have little idea as to the capabilities of our armed forces. You think that because the USN has Carriers in an area, that means that all American military aircraft that are needed in a particular region can be used? Sorry, that is not how it is. Oh and "without being seen" comment is amusing too. Stealth aircraft have radar signiatures, they are just so minute that they are ignored unless someone knows what to look for.

 

Non naval, dedicated ground attack aircraft need forward airbases. The A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), the AH-64D Apache both require forward bases as do the AC-130 Spectre gunships. The B-2 Spirit bomber does have exceptional range and, to the best of my knowledge,is not based outside of the U.S., but it is designed to be a nuclear bomber and to fire cruise missiles. Sometimes it requires more than that to get the job done. Which is why we have the B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress units based in Europe. Time to deployment is critical sometimes. F-22 Raptors, F-15 Eagles, F-16 Falcons (all air superiority fighters for reference sake) all require closer to possible frontline bases in order to be able to operate optimum efficiency in a combat situation. Our AWACS aircraft, the E-3B and E-3C, need those bases in order to conduct surveillance. Those more effective early warning systems and so on, for the record.

 

Yes we have air-to-air tankers that can extend the operating radius of our aircraft, but guess what, they need to be based somewhere too. Besides, the fatigue on some of those long flights can hinder the alertness of solo pilots depending on the aircraft.

 

This is just with regards to our airbases.

 

Our ground forces are committed to multiple countries for many reasons. Some are Cold War holdovers to protect Western Europe however it is also appropriate for rapid deployment to any region in the world whenever we need to project a ground presence in a particular theater of combat. Also we have commitments to our allies in certain areas as well.

 

While it feels good to say "All our troops should be home" it isn't a realistic endavour.

Okay, here is the deal. Those 30,000 troops are there as an excuse for us to intervene in a conflict in Korea plain and simple. They kill American troops, we intervene. It's cold and calculating but that is how it is.

 

As to your Aricraft Carrier comment, it strikes me that you have little idea as to the capabilities of our armed forces. You think that because the USN has Carriers in an area, that means that all American military aircraft that are needed in a particular region can be used? Sorry, that is not how it is. Oh and "without being seen" comment is amusing too. Stealth aircraft have radar signiatures, they are just so minute that they are ignored unless someone knows what to look for.

 

Non naval, dedicated ground attack aircraft need forward airbases. The A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), the AH-64D Apache both require forward bases as do the AC-130 Spectre gunships. The B-2 Spirit bomber does have exceptional range and, to the best of my knowledge,is not based outside of the U.S., but it is designed to be a nuclear bomber and to fire cruise missiles. Sometimes it requires more than that to get the job done. Which is why we have the B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress units based in Europe. Time to deployment is critical sometimes. F-22 Raptors, F-15 Eagles, F-16 Falcons (all air superiority fighters for reference sake) all require closer to possible frontline bases in order to be able to operate optimum efficiency in a combat situation. Our AWACS aircraft, the E-3B and E-3C, need those bases in order to conduct surveillance. Those more effective early warning systems and so on, for the record.

 

Yes we have air-to-air tankers that can extend the operating radius of our aircraft, but guess what, they need to be based somewhere too. Besides, the fatigue on some of those long flights can hinder the alertness of solo pilots depending on the aircraft.

 

This is just with regards to our airbases.

 

Our ground forces are committed to multiple countries for many reasons. Some are Cold War holdovers to protect Western Europe however it is also appropriate for rapid deployment to any region in the world whenever we need to project a ground presence in a particular theater of combat. Also we have commitments to our allies in certain areas as well.

 

While it feels good to say "All our troops should be home" it isn't a realistic endavour.

 

Very impressive and based upon this quote, I am guessing you will not be voting for Ron Paul.

Very impressive and based upon this quote, I am guessing you will not be voting for Ron Paul.

 

 

Uh, no.

 

I am still undecided between Huckabee and McCain.

Uh, no.

 

I am still undecided between Huckabee and McCain.

 

Cindy McCain has long been an advocate for children everywhere and their health care needs in particular. She founded and ran the American Voluntary medical team (AVMT) from 1988-1995. AVMT provided emergency medical and surgical care to impoverished children throughout the world. Cindy led 55 medical missions to third world and war-torn countries during AVMT's seven years of existence. In recent years, Cindy has dedicated the bulk of her volunteer time to three international organizations: The HALO Trust, Operation Smile and CARE.

 

The HALO Trust is a non-profit organization dedicated to landmine removal and weapons destruction in war-torn countries. HALO has 7,000 mine clearers in ten countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Southeast Asia, Africa and the Balkans. As a member of the Board of Trustees for the HALO Trust, Cindy has traveled to Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Angola and recently returned from her second visit to Cambodia. On each mission, she has observed the mine clearing process and seen the impact HALO has had in people's lives by removing landmines. She has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of HALO's life saving work. "It is impossible to describe the emotion of watching villages erected before your eyes as recently cleared land is handed back to its once displaced people."

Cindy McCain has long been an advocate for children everywhere and their health care needs in particular. She founded and ran the American Voluntary medical team (AVMT) from 1988-1995. AVMT provided emergency medical and surgical care to impoverished children throughout the world. Cindy led 55 medical missions to third world and war-torn countries during AVMT's seven years of existence. In recent years, Cindy has dedicated the bulk of her volunteer time to three international organizations: The HALO Trust, Operation Smile and CARE.

 

The HALO Trust is a non-profit organization dedicated to landmine removal and weapons destruction in war-torn countries. HALO has 7,000 mine clearers in ten countries in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Southeast Asia, Africa and the Balkans. As a member of the Board of Trustees for the HALO Trust, Cindy has traveled to Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Angola and recently returned from her second visit to Cambodia. On each mission, she has observed the mine clearing process and seen the impact HALO has had in people's lives by removing landmines. She has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of HALO's life saving work. "It is impossible to describe the emotion of watching villages erected before your eyes as recently cleared land is handed back to its once displaced people."

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

You know me too well! :lol:

Okay, here is the deal. Those 30,000 troops are there as an excuse for us to intervene in a conflict in Korea plain and simple. They kill American troops, we intervene. It's cold and calculating but that is how it is.

 

As to your Aricraft Carrier comment, it strikes me that you have little idea as to the capabilities of our armed forces. You think that because the USN has Carriers in an area, that means that all American military aircraft that are needed in a particular region can be used? Sorry, that is not how it is. Oh and "without being seen" comment is amusing too. Stealth aircraft have radar signiatures, they are just so minute that they are ignored unless someone knows what to look for.

 

Non naval, dedicated ground attack aircraft need forward airbases. The A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog), the AH-64D Apache both require forward bases as do the AC-130 Spectre gunships. The B-2 Spirit bomber does have exceptional range and, to the best of my knowledge,is not based outside of the U.S., but it is designed to be a nuclear bomber and to fire cruise missiles. Sometimes it requires more than that to get the job done. Which is why we have the B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress units based in Europe. Time to deployment is critical sometimes. F-22 Raptors, F-15 Eagles, F-16 Falcons (all air superiority fighters for reference sake) all require closer to possible frontline bases in order to be able to operate optimum efficiency in a combat situation. Our AWACS aircraft, the E-3B and E-3C, need those bases in order to conduct surveillance. Those more effective early warning systems and so on, for the record.

 

Yes we have air-to-air tankers that can extend the operating radius of our aircraft, but guess what, they need to be based somewhere too. Besides, the fatigue on some of those long flights can hinder the alertness of solo pilots depending on the aircraft.

 

This is just with regards to our airbases.

 

Our ground forces are committed to multiple countries for many reasons. Some are Cold War holdovers to protect Western Europe however it is also appropriate for rapid deployment to any region in the world whenever we need to project a ground presence in a particular theater of combat. Also we have commitments to our allies in certain areas as well.

 

While it feels good to say "All our troops should be home" it isn't a realistic endavour.

 

So we are willing to sacrifice 30,000 lives as an excuse to attack North Korea? Even without the troops there I think the US would intervene in another Korean War. A lot of this policy stems from the belief that we should be the world police, which I don't agree with. Should we have bases overseas? A few. But not as many as we do now. We won't fight another conventional war with a legit nation again. Russia, China, and Iran know not to attack us. The only real threats come from terrorists in third world countries and we don't need a base in Okinawa to deal with that threat. Japan should be allowed to build their military back up and we can redeploy those assets or bring them home. We spend too much money protecting countries that don't want/need our protection.

So we are willing to sacrifice 30,000 lives as an excuse to attack North Korea? Even without the troops there I think the US would intervene in another Korean War. A lot of this policy stems from the belief that we should be the world police, which I don't agree with. Should we have bases overseas? A few. But not as many as we do now. We won't fight another conventional war with a legit nation again. Russia, China, and Iran know not to attack us. The only real threats come from terrorists in third world countries and we don't need a base in Okinawa to deal with that threat. Japan should be allowed to build their military back up and we can redeploy those assets or bring them home. We spend too much money protecting countries that don't want/need our protection.

You do realize that the ROK has an army don't you? And your statement that we will never fight another coventional war with a legit nation is just crazy talk.