The Coming War With Iran

reply to post by enigma77


Before making such statements as, we are spread too thin, you should actually look up how many troops the US has, how many are deployed, and how many can be called up. It is this lack of understanding and knowledge of the US Military and what we actually have that really makes me lose respect for what you and others have to say.

Not to mention how many former members of the US armed forces we have, myself included, that can and would pick up a weapon and either rejoin in the event of an incredibly unlikely invasion of the US or form our own militia to protect our country.

It is surprising that here at a site where the tagline is deny ignorance there are so many that act like lemmings and do just that when it comes to any knowledge of the capability's of our armed forces.

I remember back in the 80's during the Reagan administration when I was going to all the L.A. punk rock shows back then. Half the flyers had a picture of reagan with a swastica on his forehead like he was a dictator like people say Bush is today. I'll admit I was on board because I was afraid of the USSR back then like most people. I thank God today that man came and had the kahonies to stand up for what was right. I also remember talking to all the old hippies like my anti war hippie parents during vietnam. Too bad the left won in those days and wouldnt let us win that war. Thats why polpot got to go in and slaughter millions after we pulled out. The same thing will happen with Iraq and we will look like fools again with our tail between our legs only the world is more dangerious these days which of course was demonstrated on 911. If we pull out now it will be a blood bath and Iran will be empowered over the worlds leading oil supplies and saudi arabia will be their next target. I hope we stay the course and work with Iran and keep them out but the current proxy situation is putting us in a place where we are going to have to deal with them if we want to see Iraq like post war germany or japan. I do believe there were wmd's there and the russians helped move them to seria to make us look like fools. I dont believe in conspiracy left wing paranoia and the war only costs us 4% of our GDP to thats just a drop in the bucket. Yes it's complicated now but Iran must be stopped or the mission will fail. As far as at home goes we have a 5% unemployment rate so tell me where the extra money is going to go besides infrastructure? Paying more of the lazy welfare people? Give them a raise as Jeremia Wrong would want?

US Monitor, may i ask please;

Would you also pick up your weapon if you were told to go fight against/invade Iran? - I'm not picking here, just asking the question.

Also, do you not think it's time to stop using aggression against the rest of the world, as it's obviously not having any possitive effect.

Thanks.

reply to post by US Monitor


Thank you for serving our country. I appreciate your sacrifices. I don't disrespect our troops. Not in any way shape or form. It is not their or your fault as to what is going on currently. I pray that every soldier comes home safe, well, and sane to their families soon.

As for serving, just before I graduated college, the Army wanted to reqruit me as a biologist for them. I would have gone. In fact, I wanted to go into the Navy after HS and was speaking to a recruiter then. Unfortunately, at that time they didn't allow women on subs, and then I was "rejected" b/c I have a rare metabolic disease and have degenerative cartilage.

Now, maybe I am missing me something. If we are not spread too thin why is it that our men/womenare being stop lossed??? Why are their tours lasting so long? Why have the national guard (OUR HOME GUARD) been sent over there? It was terrifying for our community when our division was sent, we were very glad when they came home safe.

I never said that our military is incapable. I have friends in the national guard, in the army, in the navy, and in the marines (don't think I know any in the airforce). I know what they are capable of.

Perhaps instead of ignorance: naiveté?

reply to post by The Wizard


No, for the same reason I didn't re-up to go to Iraq. I don't think we have any real reason to fight Iran. And while I think we can and should draw parallels towards fighting iraq alongside our involvement against Serbia in the mid to late 90's, I know that we should not have gone there until at the very least we had taken care of business in Afghanistan.

The crazy thing about Iran is that if we changed our whole policy in regards to how we deal with them, I firmly believe that the people of Iran would be far more receptive to US overtures of friendship then any other country in the ME next to Israel. The populace of Iran are not our enemy. Their Govt. is however, much like our Govt. is there enemy.

Now if you look at the Saudi's it is just the opposite. The people of SA truly hate us (the US) while their Govt. is our 'ally'. I have long advocated dropping the pretend arab state allies or ours in favor of friendly relations with Iran which would likely help the reformists there to change their Govt.

Now if we truly needed a 37 year old man back in uniform for a war that our survival depended on, I would not hesitate to join again. I love my country but I am not blind to our faults and feel very comfortable expressing my feelings.

Originally posted by enigma77
reply to post by US Monitor

 

Thank you for serving our country. I appreciate your sacrifices. I don't disrespect our troops. Not in any way shape or form. It is not their or your fault as to what is going on currently. I pray that every soldier comes home safe, well, and sane to their families soon.

As for serving, just before I graduated college, the Army wanted to reqruit me as a biologist for them. I would have gone. In fact, I wanted to go into the Navy after HS and was speaking to a recruiter then. Unfortunately, at that time they didn't allow women on subs, and then I was "rejected" b/c I have a rare metabolic disease and have degenerative cartilage.

Now, maybe I am missing me something. If we are not spread too thin why is it that our men/womenare being stop lossed??? Why are their tours lasting so long? Why have the national guard (OUR HOME GUARD) been sent over there? It was terrifying for our community when our division was sent, we were very glad when they came home safe.

I never said that our military is incapable. I have friends in the national guard, in the army, in the navy, and in the marines (don't think I know any in the airforce). I know what they are capable of.

Perhaps instead of ignorance: naiveté?

I thank you for your post and I apologize for being snarky in my post to you.
Newsweek had a great article recently about how the US military is adapting to the fighting in Iraq.

www.newsweek.com...

one aspect of that and a major aspect of stop loss is that we have troops who know who they are fighting and that exp. is invaluable. Also when you join the military, if you sign up for 4 years active, your contract is still for 8 years total. It is called IRR and it was designed that way so that these trained troops would be the first called back instead of using a draft. Better to have troops who know what they are doing then newbies who have to be trained from scratch.

This is a lesson learned from Vietnam where essentially we fought the war 9 times over cause every year we had new green troops coming in.

Anyway, if you look at the number of troops we have stationed in Japan, in Germany and Korea you can see that the number of troops we have in Iraq is less then any of those places. And those troops in Iraq are stuck being cops and rebuilders, which isn't what they were trained to do. What we train to do is what you saw in Desert Storm and in week one of Gulf War II. Move fast, hit hard, hit overwhelmingly and take out the enemy. If we were to fight Iran, then these troops, who are battle tested and ready, with proven technology, would shred Iran's forces on land, air and sea. Where we would run any risk of spreading ourselves thin would be with trying to occupy Iran which would not be needed.

Originally posted by The Wizard
US Monitor, may i ask please;

Would you also pick up your weapon if you were told to go fight against/invade Iran? - I'm not picking here, just asking the question.

Also, do you not think it's time to stop using aggression against the rest of the world, as it's obviously not having any possitive effect.

Thanks.

I do think the use of aggression has been over done by the US. However I also feel it depends on who we are discussing. I don't think the US ever needed to be involved in Serbia as I considered that a European issue and felt that Europe should have been able to handle that problem.

In terms of North Korea, I do feel it is essential to never show them weakness, same with the arab states. Force is part of who they are and what they respect and respond to.

As for China we need to show we are serious, but at the same time the world that the US and EU and China work in has evolved past brute force and new ways of dealing with each other are required.

As for Iran, I have stated above what I think we should do there. And as for Africa, I think we need to help them, but in many ways I would prefer to see Africa be kept free of too many human advances and incursions into nature, same with South America and the rainforest.

I think the US should turn inwards to fix our own internal infrastructure and resolve home grown issues like health care and moving away from oil based fuel sources. I also think we should open the door to relations with Cuba and repair the damage we have done with Central and South American nations and work closer with them to build a strong relation ship. I would prefer to see US companies keep jobs here, but if we have to outsource, then we should keep away from China and India and move them to the America's.

reply to post by US Monitor


I am glad we can move on to civility, we are on the same side, after all.

I get that we want our men and women experienced. But how good is it to extend their time so far that they become mentally unstable? We are turning our people into monsters. I have to admit I am ignorant on this: Do they rotate in the troops stationed in other areas? I just don't see how extended tours can be helpful. We are wearing them out and wearing out their families.

Also, again, our troops are not here in the USA, to protect us, should we need protecting here. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know what the percentages are? Home vs away?

I think the US should turn inwards to fix our own internal infrastructure and resolve home grown issues like health care and moving away from oil based fuel sources.

Here, here.

Yet another recent write-up regarding the sinister plans of TPTB to launch an invasion into Iran...


The Coming War With Iran: It's About The Oil, Stupid

Sixty percent of this oil is under a triangular area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech Cheney said: “The Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

This small Middle East triangle encompasses the northeast of Saudi Arabia, all of Iraq and the southwestern part of Iran, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the Emirates. The US controls Iraq. It has friendly governments in the other states.

Iran is the exception. The US now surrounds Iran.

I'm not sure yet if I fully believe that it's ALL about oil, but I'm sure that does have a part in it...But Keeping the Corps and M.I.C. funneling in the huge wealth is an even bigger part behind these endless wars IMO...Still, the author makes some interesting points...

It’s been known for at least thirty years that America needs alternative energy sources. But instead of an alternative energy plan we got the invasion of Iraq by oilmen wedded to a dying business, willing to kill hundreds of thousands to cling to the last drop. The US is never leaving the region or withdrawing from Iraq. McCain is right about staying, but 100 years is too long. The oil won’t last that long.

Iran is next. Lieberman set up Petraeus to testify last week that Iranian-backed groups are murdering hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq. On Friday Gates called Iran’s influence in Iraq “malign” and Bush said if Iran keeps meddling in Iraq “then we’ll deal with them.” They are building their case for war with resolutions in the Senate and at the UN. It’s only western Iran, from the Iraq border to 150 miles inside the country that the U.S. will have to occupy. That’s where Iran’s oil is.

Source:
www.commondreams.org...

[edit on 14-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

This is a great article about the Guts and Glory of the Good ol' USA and Iran!

Waking Up to Iran
Anyone who cares didn’t need Gen. Petraeus’s testimony to know that Iraq is a thousand percent better now than it was last September, and another thousand percent might make it almost tolerable. Iraq, indeed, wasn’t the point of his testimony – Iran was the point. And the message is clear.

Iran has been at war with the United States since the Revolution in 1979, because the Ayatollahs need an external enemy – and who better than we, always more likely to try to win them back than fight them (message to Obama). Fifty-five years after Moussadegh and 29 years after we dumped the Shah, the United States remains an essential bete noir. Earthquake relief; the rescue of Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait; support for Kosovo independence; and the overthrow of Saddam, rescuing thousands of Shiite Marsh Arabs are irrelevant.

Persian Iran is on the march – building nuclear and long-range missile capability; spreading Shiite messianism and Persian influence; co-opting Syria; popping up in Africa and South America; arming and training Hezballah; even supporting Sunni Hamas – working with anyone who shares either or both of their goals: increased Islamic influence and the diminution of the United States.

Iraq has become an essential battlefield – NOT because we overthrew Saddam; that much even they appreciated – but because Iran assumed we would leave and allow them unfettered access to the Shiite Arab majority country and through that, direct access to Syria, Jordan and finally Israel. Iranian support was, at first, through proxies including Moktada Sadr and the Shiite parties. It was supposed to be enough.

The Americans were supposed to get bloodied and run. Iraq’s Shiites were supposed to put religion before Arabism and certainly before Iraq-ism. We didn’t and they didn’t.

We made our stand with the Sunnis fighting al Qaeda, and at some point, the al Maliki government decided Iraq shouldn’t be an arm of the Ayatollahs. The Iranians had to increase aid to their allies in Iraq and thus acquired increased visibility – something they did not want, but into which we forced them by not rolling over.

The offensive against Sadr’s forces in Basra and Baghdad required American and British assistance. But a little-reported upon meeting over the weekend brought together all of Iraq’s parliamentary parties except the Sadr parties in support of the al Maliki government. The Iraqi government and its army showed in Basra that they are forging a national identity as Iraqis, not as Shiites or Sunnis rentable by al Qaeda or Iran. Is this not the political “surge” we sought and the “reconciliation” we have demanded?

Gen. Petraeus rightly told Congress that Iraq is fragile and we have a lot of work left to do. This is no time to be sanguine. Even if Iraq continues to do well, it is only one front in the larger war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them. And as Iraq continues improve, Iran will be looking for other fronts in its continuing war against the United States and the West.

What a load of CRAP jasonhb!

Iran has been at war with the United States since the Revolution in 1979, because the Ayatollahs need an external enemy – and who better than we

Why does iran NEED an external enemy? It seems to me, the USA is the only one of the 3 ( Iraq, Iran, US ) That has a major financial system built around the military-industrial community. Iran haven’t been at war SINCE the 80’s, they aren’t invading anyone, nor do they NEED to. They have all the oil in their lands they need, they have jewls, spices, ocean access…. What on earth are you on about here? WHY do Iran NEED an external enemy?
They have enough bandits in the outlying area’s to need a military system. They allow drugs to flow freely from Afghanistan through Iran, they have issues with the kurds too…

Fifty-five years after Moussadegh and 29 years after we dumped the Shah, the United States remains an essential bete noir. Earthquake relief; the rescue of Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait; support for Kosovo independence; and the overthrow of Saddam, rescuing thousands of Shiite Marsh Arabs are irrelevant.

Only a patsy, a pawn and a fool still bounces around positive concepts about the overthrow of Saddam. It is, and will always be the WORST foreign adventure committed. It has done nothing but embolden Iran, and make them STRONG in the middle east. We did more worse than good in Kosovo, we ALLOWED saddam to enter kuwaitt, and our aid to Indonesia after the tsunami was dismal until the world started putting pressure on us to REALLY help out.
The ‘bete-noir’ of American government couldn’t even figure out what to do in the wake of Katrina.. that’s AMERICAN citizens…

Persian Iran is on the march – building nuclear and long-range missile capability; spreading Shiite messianism and Persian influence; co-opting Syria; popping up in Africa and South America; arming and training Hezballah; even supporting Sunni Hamas – working with anyone who shares either or both of their goals: increased Islamic influence and the diminution of the United States.

How are they on the march? Do you see large brigades of Persian army forming barracks on borders, ammasing troops, tanks and planes? Are they saturating the gulf with nuclear subs and ships? Iran, like every other nation has a right to build missile’s and defense. They signed the NPT act, and as such haven’t breached it, being they are still BUILDING their research facilities. Im sorry, the world doesn’t have to listen to the United States this time, they lied about Iraq and they are lying about Iran.

As of late, Iran have proven to be MORE in control of their dark tendancies. After all it was America that unleashed the dogs of war, prematurely and incorrectly. Where as Iran have yet to do anything like that, IN HISTORY.

The United states backs foreign militia all over the world, we are backing the terrorists in Iran ( The ones Iran deems terrorists ) how bloody hypocritical when somethings good enough for the US, but illegial for Iran.
This is why your economy is collapsing, the world is sick of your mindless SH*T, and have no confidence in American values, or the American dollar.

Iraq has become an essential battlefield – NOT because we overthrew Saddam; that much even they appreciated – but because Iran assumed we would leave and allow them unfettered access to the Shiite Arab majority country and through that, direct access to Syria, Jordan and finally Israel. Iranian support was, at first, through proxies including Moktada Sadr and the Shiite parties. It was supposed to be enough.

Iraq has become a devastated wasteland, full of angry people surrounded by munitions. Its better to fight and to die than to live in squaller, in a sewage filled living room watching your sons and daughters die in militia, torture rooms or of starvation, disease or by being killed in American bombing raids.

We opened Iraq up to all the foreign militia’s in the world. Saudi, Sudanese, Iranian, South African, Palestinian, Somalian…. WE DID THIS, Not Iran, not Russia or Syria, WE DID THIS. Iraq was the most westernized nation in the ME. Our invasion had NOTHING to do with Saddam, it had everything to do with OIL< AND REGIONAL CONTROL.
THIS IS WHY it will FAIL.

The Americans were supposed to get bloodied and run. Iraq’s Shiites were supposed to put religion before Arabism and certainly before Iraq-ism. We didn’t and they didn’t.

The American:

Army has been depleted
Economy has been destroyed
Moral has been shot
Confidence has been dissolved
Influence has been obliterated

An your government STILL believes it’s the right move to STAY? Cant you see they aren’t there for any stated reasons? We are there for pure personal gain, because the actions are doing are completely void of the results we are getting.

The offensive against Sadr’s forces in Basra and Baghdad required American and British assistance. But a little-reported upon meeting over the weekend brought together all of Iraq’s parliamentary parties except the Sadr parties in support of the al Maliki government. The Iraqi government and its army showed in Basra that they are forging a national identity as Iraqis, not as Shiites or Sunnis rentable by al Qaeda or Iran. Is this not the political “surge” we sought and the “reconciliation” we have demanded?

WHAT?
1300 of ‘that army’ fled and ran to the militia.
The militia met with members of the government and organised a TRUCE, IRAN ARRANGED THIS!
The Iraqi government is nothing, its pathetic.. as soon as anything happens they will side with their respective factions.
The government is a SHAM, and so is the army.

Gen. Petraeus rightly told Congress that Iraq is fragile and we have a lot of work left to do. This is no time to be sanguine. Even if Iraq continues to do well, it is only one front in the larger war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them. And as Iraq continues improve, Iran will be looking for other fronts in its continuing war against the United States and the West.

Iraq is a mess, as much as it was before.
Your 5pm prime time news and TV just don’t show it any more.
And how pathetic soo many of you fall for this charade.



[edit on 14-4-2008 by Agit8dChop]

reply to post by Agit8dChop


The US Army is depleted? Oh do provide some facts to back up such a silly assertion as you obviously know little or nothing about the US Army and the rest of our armed forces if you are buying into that load of crap.

As for Iran, I think you need to do a bit of research about the internal problems that they have if you want to understand why they use the US and Israel as an external threat. Look up their problems with their economy, and other issues such as basic freedoms. The US and Israel are a nice little bogey man for them to use to distract from their own internal problems. Just like we in the US have Bush using Iraq to distract from our own internal problems.

The Iraq war has strained the US military to the extent that America could not fight another large-scale war today, according to a new survey of military officers.

Nine in 10 officers said the war had stretched the ­military “dangerously thin”. However, 56 per cent disagreed with the suggestion that the conflict had “broken” the armed services, while 64 per cent said morale was high.

More than 3,400 current and retired officers, including more than 200 generals and admirals, participated in the survey by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security, a centrist think-tank.

The results underscore the concerns of officers about the strain that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed on the military. Of respondents, 60 per cent said the military was weaker today than five years ago.

fairuse.100webcustomers.com...
Id take their view over Bush's, or some gun hoe american citizen.

Study: US army stretched to breaking point
(AP)
Updated: 2006-01-25 07:25


Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...



I know quite a bit more about the internal problems of Iran, and society than you might think.
My partner ( I hate mentioning her online ) escaped Iran in 2002, was thrown in prison in Turkey and released by the United nations as a refugee to Australia.
She knows first hand INTERNAL concepts.

Iran has NO NEED to 'create' an external enemy.
Their economy is falling because the US is placing strict sanctions on them, similar to Iraq.

Iran have many issues with outlaying bandits and militia that form in the border regions, they had an internal bomb go off in shiraz this week that is assumed to be blamed on Wahabi's.

Before Iraq 2003, Iran was becoming closer and closer to the west, allowing its people to roam a bit more, enjoy western things a bit more.... even the president AT THAT MOMENY wanted dialoge with the west.

Why on EARTH do Iran NEED an external enemy in the United States?

Iran are backing Hezbollah and Hamas, this is true, sad but true.
But, arent the US backing Isarel and Iraq?

Funny, how the US See's the Israeli government and Iraqi government legitimate enough to back with weapons, yet doesnt take into consideration that Hamas WON governemnt in the gaza strip, and the Iraqi government ISNT supported by Iraqi's...

pure biased reporting at its best.

Israel can bomb as many children as it pleases, arrest as many palestinians as it pleases, yet if a palestinian slips in a bomb belt that kills half adozen, it warrants massive air raids.

Iran even OFFERED assisatnce after september 11.....

Figure this,

on September 12th, 2001 the WORLD had its BEST chance at curing alot of the problems that had been open and free since the 70's.

Israel-Palestine
Afghanistan
Iran/Iraq

Instead of using its offers of help, it turned aggresive and invaded.

Its more F'ud now than it ever was, and unforunately, aggresive nations never win, the US either has to back down and pull out or face defeat.

Originally posted by US Monitor
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

The US Army is depleted? Oh do provide some facts to back up [snip]

Here, US Monitor, I agree with you.

So, to reiterate the question I asked above (and I really would like to see the answer, with source please):

Do you (or anyone else) happen to know what the percentages are? Home vs away?

reply to post by enigma77


I will have to look up the percents to see. Far as I know, since the Cold War the US has kept more troops overseas then at home.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

The Iraq war has strained the US military to the extent that America could not fight another large-scale war today, according to a new survey of military officers.

Nine in 10 officers said the war had stretched the ­military “dangerously thin”. However, 56 per cent disagreed with the suggestion that the conflict had “broken” the armed services, while 64 per cent said morale was high.

More than 3,400 current and retired officers, including more than 200 generals and admirals, participated in the survey by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security, a centrist think-tank.

The results underscore the concerns of officers about the strain that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed on the military. Of respondents, 60 per cent said the military was weaker today than five years ago.

fairuse.100webcustomers.com...
Id take their view over Bush's, or some gun hoe american citizen.

Study: US army stretched to breaking point
(AP)
Updated: 2006-01-25 07:25


Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

Sorry but I am not about to believe ChinaDaily on anything about the US or our military.

As for your other source, look at what you quoted and you will see that moral and the myth that the war has broken the Army are both wrong.

As for being gun ho, I served 6 years in the US Military and I will take my first hand knowledge over someone who never put a uniform on in there lives everyday of the week.

If the US had to fight another war, we would most likely move away from the all-volunteer Armed Forces and do what we did in every other war except this one and use the draft. Funny how no one seems to notice that this war is the only one that draft has not been used......

www.cato.org...

Notice the date:

This article appeared on cato.org on July 24, 1998.
PRINT PAGE
E-MAIL PAGE
TEXT SIZE

The United States has over 200,000 troops stationed in 144 countries and territories. At any given time, it usually has another 20,000 sailors and Marines deployed afloat on Navy ships. In the more benign post-Cold War international environment, why does the United States need all of those forces positioned overseas?

Although some argue that ethnic tensions unleashed after the end of the Cold War have made the world less stable, statistical indicators of stability show otherwise. In the post-Cold War period, the number of armed conflicts has declined by more than half -- from 55 in 1992 to 24 in 1997. In addition, most conflicts now occur within states, not between them. Of the 101 conflicts occurring from 1989 to 1996, 95 involved combatants within a state and only six took place between states. A threat to U.S. security is more apt to arise from cross-border aggression than from civil strife.

So why do all of those U.S. forces remain overseas? Some of the 200,000 military personnel in 144 nations perform legitimate missions like protecting U.S. embassies and collecting intelligence. But the vast majority of the deployments are vestiges of the Cold War.

Most of the 100,000 troops in Europe (mainly in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, Iceland, Belgium and Portugal) and almost all of the 75,000 troops in Asia (in Japan and South Korea) are supporting wealthy nations against mild or declining threats.

The other 10,000 troops in Europe (in Hungary and Bosnia) are conducting and supporting a peace enforcement mission in Bosnia that has nothing to do with American vital interests. Indeed, the mission is already becoming a quagmire that is unlikely to prevent a resumption of fighting after NATO's withdrawal.

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps need a rotation base of over 150,000 people to have 20,000 people deployed afloat in overseas theaters (Europe, the Persian Gulf, East Asia and other locations) at any one time. The Navy claims that overseas naval presence deters aggressors in those regions and reassures allies. The claim of deterrence is unsubstantiated and dubious. Moreover, an overseas naval presence only reassures wealthy allies that the United States will come to their rescue, thus enabling them to forgo adequate spending for defense.

Therefore, most of the 200,000 American troops stationed overseas and most of the 20,000 sailors and Marines performing overseas naval presence missions could be withdrawn without harming U.S. national security. With no major adversary on the horizon in the post-Cold War world, the United States does not need to police every portion of the globe for its rich allies.

www.strategypage.com...

In 2005, as the Sunni Arab terror campaign in Iraq intensified, the average number of U.S. troops overseas went to 245,000 (64 percent army, 10 percent marines). In 2006, there were 247,000 troops over there (63 percent army, 13 percent marines). Last year, the total was 256,000 (61 percent army, 13 percent marines). In the last two years, about ten percent of the troops overseas are navy and air force personnel serving on the ground in direct support of the army and marines.

en.wikipedia.org...

As of April 2007, about 1,426,700 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,500 people in the seven reserve components.[citation needed][4] As it is currently a volunteer military, there is no conscription.

Personnel in each service

As of October 31, 2007 (women as of September 2006)[3]
Service Total Active Duty Personnel (Percent of Total) Percentage Female Enlisted Officers
Army 522,388 (37%) 14% 433,300 84,698
Marine Corps 186,209 (13%) 6.2% 166,674 19,535
Navy 336,214 (24%) 14.9% 280,565 51,265
Air Force 332,663 (23%) 20.1% 262,860 65,410
Coast Guard 41,738 (3%) 10.7% 31,286 7,835
Total 1,419,212 (100%) 14.9% 1,143,399 220,908

[edit] Personnel deployed

Main article: Deployments of the United States Military

[edit] Overseas

As of 2003, U.S. troops were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[6] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 75,603
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 40,045
South Korea (United States Forces Korea ) 29,086
Italy 10,449
United Kingdom 10,331
Romania 1,000

As of May 5, 2007, there were about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of day-to-day operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom.[7] About 19,500 U.S. troops are engaged elsewhere throughout the Middle East, with the bulk in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Troops inside the US

Within the United States

Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters

A total of 1,112,684 personnel are on active duty within the United States including:[8]
Continental U.S. 900,088
Hawaii 33,343
Alaska 17,714
Afloat 109,119
Guam 3,784
Puerto Rico 1,552

Feel free to argue with me, but good luck arguing the numbers....