Numbers [Archive] - Physics Forums

russ_watters

Apr3-04, 11:21 AM

I thought we discussed this once before. Anyway, the US has a large number of troops in the Gulf and large permanent bases in Germany. The vast majority of our foreign deployed troops are in those two areas. The vast majority of countries that have US troops stationed in them have only a small Marine Corps detachment at the US Embassy (shall I argue that if they are at the embassy, they're not actually in the country? ....naaa, I'll let that one go).

Adam

Apr3-04, 12:16 PM

The top scores, according to the US military's "ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (309A)
December 31, 2002":

Europe: 117,401
East Asia & Pacific: 96,289
North Africa: 13,697
Cuba & Honduras: 1,060

Total in foreign counties: 237,473.
The US recognises 192 countries, and has personnel posted in 135 of them.
237,473 divided by 135: 1,759 military personnel per country.

South Korea has only 38,725.
Germany has 72,000.

Since this report there have been a further 150,000 to 200,000 troops deployed on foreign soil.

phatmonky

Apr3-04, 12:24 PM

Since this report there have been a further 150,000 to 200,000 troops deployed on foreign soil.

Yes, let's mix in Iraq and AFghanistan in a post that is blatently aimed towards you complaining of New world order, US imperialism, or PNAC. No difference between people deployed in Germany and those that are being rotated through Iraq :rolleyes:

Adam

Apr3-04, 01:33 PM

Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

motai

Apr3-04, 03:15 PM

phatmonky

Apr4-04, 03:11 AM

Read: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
I guess, since you are going there already.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll

phatmonky

Apr4-04, 03:13 AM

Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense.

This has been discussed bu Rumsfeld, and while everyone seems to think it's so bad that our troops are in Germany, the Germans aren't ready for us to move out (economic collapse of two cities during a recession). It's a politically sensitive situation, but I'm happy to have them move on to where they are more needed

schwarzchildradius

Apr4-04, 04:03 AM

This has been discussed bu Rumsfeld, and while everyone seems to think it's so bad that our troops are in Germany, the Germans aren't ready for us to move out (economic collapse of two cities during a recession). It's a politically sensitive situation, but I'm happy to have them move on to where they are more needed
Discussed by Rumsfeld? It must make sense. Germany is where US casualties in Iraq usually end up. It's a no-go for reporters now days. I like this part though:
mix in Iraq and AFghanistan in a post that is blatently aimed towards you complaining of New world order, US imperialism, or PNAC. No difference between people deployed in Germany and those that are being rotated through Iraq
What's wrong with summarizing US troop deployments worldwide? So we can face the truth about how weakened our military has become because of un-planned overextention in Iraq. Not budgeted either. This is an extremely reckless act that has resulted in high casualties for Iraqis and US soldiers as well as mercenaries. Mercenaries are hired to hide the true cost in American human lives.

Adam

Apr4-04, 06:53 AM

I guess, since you are going there already.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Internet-troll
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Pathetic.

phatmonky

Apr4-04, 10:13 AM

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Pathetic.
Right, so when are you going to prove me a wrong and put a point to this thread, outside of your standard "imperialism" fare? :rolleyes:

russ_watters

Apr5-04, 01:13 AM

:rolleyes: Hey, I didn't notice that before. Musta just come in after the software upgrade. That emoticon has been sorely needed around here. Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense. Actually, it goes far beyond even that. We aren't closing the bases in Germany for the same reason we have so much trouble closing bases here: it'll destroy the local economy. Mercenaries Mercenaries?

typo fixed

Tsu

Apr5-04, 02:28 AM

Mercinaries?
Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)

Adam

Apr5-04, 05:03 AM

What seems to be the nature of your distress?
Why do you assume I am distressed?

russ_watters

Apr5-04, 12:01 PM

Why do you assume I am distressed? Historical precedent.

russ_watters

Apr5-04, 12:05 PM

I should have answered this one before: What's wrong with summarizing US troop deployments worldwide? I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before (if not here, I've had it other places). The purpose of the stats is shock value and the natural next question (from the person shocked) is: 'why do we need so many troops in so many places?' The answer is far more mundane than the initial poster would prefer.

phatmonky

Apr5-04, 01:04 PM

I should have answered this one before: I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before (if not here, I've had it other places). The purpose of the stats is shock value and the natural next question (from the person shocked) is: 'why do we need so many troops in so many places?' The answer is far more mundane than the initial poster would prefer.

Adam has taken to ignoring all those that dare try to expose the intent of this thread, or wish to debate it. We're on page 2, and yet there is no real point made, and thus I fully agree with your synopsis of the situation :)

Adam

Apr5-04, 01:05 PM

Historical precedent.
Interesting idea. Can you support this assertion?

Adam

Apr5-04, 01:07 PM

Adam has taken to ignoring all those that dare try to expose the intent of this thread, or wish to debate it. We're on page 2, and yet there is no real point made, and thus I fully agree with your synopsis of the situation :)

1) Thus far, neither you nor anyone else has mentioned my actual intent in starting this thread.

2) I do not ignore anything in this thread.

Adam

Apr5-04, 04:33 PM

Not particularly. Are you?

Tsu

Apr5-04, 05:43 PM

Do you know how many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17475
Probably enough to fill approximately 5 (out of 32) U.S football stadiums (each with a seating capacity of about 65,000).

Tsu

Apr5-04, 05:43 PM

Not particularly. Are you?
Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??

phatmonky

Apr5-04, 06:11 PM

1) Thus far, neither you nor anyone else has mentioned my actual intent in starting this thread.

Right, so when are you going to prove me a wrong and put a point to this thread, outside of your standard "imperialism" fare? :rolleyes:

So we are to just sit and poke in the dark? Well, we've been doing that, and your silence is a great agreement to our guesses. great thread as always, Adam.

Adam

Apr6-04, 12:30 AM

Phatmonky, no poking in the dark is required. This thread is not about me, nor is it about my opinions. It is about the numbers of US troops on foreign soil. Knowing my personal reasons is not required.

Adam

Apr6-04, 12:31 AM

Well, then - again, what's the point of this thread??

As should be obvious from the opening post of this thread and its attached poll, the point is to discuss the numbers of US troops on foreign soil.

jimmy p

Apr6-04, 05:50 AM

schwarzchildradius

Apr6-04, 08:12 AM

Personally I find it despicable that we have so many troops on foreign soil given the vast number of highly destructive weapons we have in our arsenals. Why risk human lives, unnecessarily? Just build a robot that is capable of driving into a foreign country, drilling for oil, and hauling the oil back out.

phatmonky

Apr6-04, 02:47 PM

OK, lets add a swing to this thread. What are the REASONS for such large amounts of US troops in these numerous countries. ESPECIALLY the ones that dont need them there. Actually there is a US base about 5 minutes down my road by the sea. I dont know why it is there, cos there is a British Military port only 10 minutes drive away. Unless the US troops are posted there for training purposes, i dont see the use of them there. Just a waste of money and people IMHO.

I agree, we should reshape our forces in a manner condusive to aiding in security where it is needed in this new world.
The reason for the remainder of the troops is multiple, depending on the area in which they are.
You've got S Korea, that is obvious. You've got Iraq and afghanistan, obvious.
You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))
Forces are in Germany, and while we looked to remove them, there was worry from the German populous about having 2 cities' economies completely wiped out over night.
Then there is the rest, which includes peacekeeping, emabssy protection, training, etc.
The overall goal is security and stability for us and our allies in any region we wish to be part of. You can't have trade and security in a region that is unstable. Stabilization doesn't come with diplomacy alone, and sometimes it doesn't come with diplomacy at all.

phatmonky

Apr6-04, 02:49 PM

I can't blame Adam for this thread, we were the ones who were foolish enough to waste our time. Best wishes to all.
God Bless America,
Mike

Alas, you are right. Who is stupider? The man who makes a worthless statement, or the man who then is naive enough to debate it :frown:

Adam

Apr6-04, 02:56 PM

You've got S Korea, that is obvious.

Tell me why you think that. And I don't mean "Repeat some government policy for me". What do you believe makes such a deployment necessary?

You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))

Again, why Korea? Why China?

Adam

Apr6-04, 02:59 PM

Alas, you are right. Who is stupider? The man who makes a worthless statement, or the man who then is naive enough to debate it :frown:

Which statement in this thread was worthless? Why do you consider it so? And do you ever do anything other than ad hominems?

russ_watters

Apr6-04, 04:18 PM

As should be obvious from the opening post of this thread and its attached poll, the point is to discuss the numbers of US troops on foreign soil. Lol, Adam. If you didn't have an opinion, you wouldn't have posted the poll.

Yeah, phat - same as always.

jimmy p

Apr6-04, 06:00 PM

Uh, why would Germany's economy crumble? Methinks a little bit of (no offence) US arrogance is into play here. What are the EU for? what about the Internet? what about all the other huge trade opportunities that are available, i hardly think a rich country like Germany in a rich community (the EU) NEEDS the funds from a few thousand American troops.

selfAdjoint

Apr6-04, 07:47 PM

Germany as a whole doesn't, but the little areas around those US bases have lived by supplying them for half a century. To lose them is painful, and "all politics is local." Germany is currently going through an economic downturn, just as the US has been, and the government takes heat there as here when they let a source of income slip away.

russ_watters

Apr6-04, 09:17 PM

Uh, why would Germany's economy crumble? Like SA said - not the whole German economy, just the towns that the bases are in. Its a huge deal. As in the US, the whole point of getting a seat on the legislature (in practice) is to bring your local politics to a national stage. Even if the town only has 50,000 people, thats 25,000 votors and every one will be pissed if you let them close that base.

Like I said, same reason its so hard to close a base in the US.

phatmonky

Apr6-04, 10:07 PM

Which statement in this thread was worthless? Why do you consider it so? And do you ever do anything other than ad hominems?

I'm MAKING this thread into an actual worthwhiel thread. Something you failed to do after 2 full pages. :rolleyes:

Adam

Apr6-04, 11:52 PM

I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.

kat

Apr7-04, 08:04 AM

I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.

I don't see him saying he thinks the world is in imminent danger from anyone, not even Korea or China...wanna dig that quote up for me? I'm really curious.

Adam

Apr7-04, 08:20 AM

You've got S Korea, that is obvious.
You've got japan and the phillipines (training, and a quick strike force in response to Korea (and some would argue China))

Well, there are the words about Korea and China, and requiring a strike force in response.

phatmonky

Apr7-04, 09:42 AM

I'm still wondering why phatmonky thinks the world is in imminent danger from Korea and China.

Kat is right. I didn't say that, and for that reason I refuse to jump down your typical straw man road.

Adam

Apr7-04, 09:51 AM

In that case, Phatmonky, please tell me what you meant about Korea and China.

russ_watters

Apr7-04, 01:24 PM

Well, there are the words about Korea and China, and requiring a strike force in response. Wow, two incomplete sentences qouted out of context. Wonderful.

hey look - more emoticons: :confused: :confused: :confused: <-me still waiting in vain for a point to this thread.

Adam, do you have an opinion to share or not?

jimmy p

Apr7-04, 01:41 PM

hey, i thought i made this thread worthwhile... see the last page and we get a LITTLE bit of continuation.... jeez

math4me

Apr7-04, 01:53 PM

mer·ce·nar·ies
One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

russ_watters

Apr7-04, 02:21 PM

hey, i thought i made this thread worthwhile... see the last page and we get a LITTLE bit of continuation.... jeez You made a good swing at it anyway... I think it was a lost cause right from the start though.

Adam

Apr7-04, 09:06 PM

Wow, two incomplete sentences qouted out of context. Wonderful.

hey look - more emoticons: :confused: :confused: :confused: <-me still waiting in vain for a point to this thread.

Adam, do you have an opinion to share or not?

Russ_waters, I know it's difficult, but I ask you to remain on topic.