Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What's the ulterior motive in closing these specific bases?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:02 PM
Original message
What's the ulterior motive in closing these specific bases?
I am referring to Fort McPherson, GA (headquarters, Forces Command--the largest maneuver command in the Army), Fort Monroe, VA (headquarters, Training and Doctrine Command--the largest major command in the Army) and Fort Monmouth, NJ (headquarters, Communications and Electronics Command).

Relocating these three major commands is going to cost us billions of dollars.

Is Shrub's hatred of blue states (New Jersey) and desire to kowtow to developers (Fort Monroe is on some very desirable land, and Fort McPherson is in the Atlanta area, where land is precious) so pervasive that he'll spend this much money-we-don't-have to do these things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. In a word, yes
Revenge of the Red States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. They also need to redirect funds to operate all those
bases that are being built in the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That sounds about right
No way does Bush save money. He is like the drunk sailor joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. I found out where they're planning to move FORSCOM
It was in the paper today: Right here at Fort Bragg.

If I was a heavy-unit commander, like maybe a colonel at Fort Hood, I'd be scared shitless about this development. The airborne is the "glory" part of the army. They get new equipment before anything else. They get as much training funding as they want. When the tankers in Europe were doing "tank training" by walking around in the woods going clank, clank (yes, they actually did this) because the Army didn't have any money to buy fuel, the paratroopers at Fort Bragg were still doing mass airborne assaults out of C-141s once a month.

And now they're going to get FORSCOM right where they want them...so they can sit there and go "you really should deactivate the armor divisions, their day is over, the future belongs to light, mobile airborne forces." And of course some dipshit at FORSCOM is going to believe that light, mobile airborne forces (who are presently getting the living shit kicked out of them because you need steel in vast quantities wrapped around your ass if you want to survive combat against an army your commander-in-chief pissed off by firing en masse, and a Hummer with an aluminum floor and three inches of sand in the wheelwells ain't got it) really are the way of the future and shortchange the heavy forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. punishing Democrats and rewarding Republicans n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. remember he gave a speech with a flag with 28 stars behind him
he's only concerned in achieving his global mission and he will sacrifice anything to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh, I dunno

The longer I've watched the process, the less I'm impressed there's much of a conspiracy there. I'm in the Northeast and I can't figure out why a whole lot of military bases should be here. As far as I can tell, the lot that is/was here was essentially sprawl to accommodate the huge Cold War military and waystation on the flyway to Western Europe.

Those big bases in the South are better suited for infantry training-they resemble wet Central Europe in the winters, the rest of the relevant armpits of the world during the rest of the year. San Diego and Newport are the logical, deep water, fleet ports. The Southwest and Great Basin deserts are the best place for air force training. The southern Californian coast and the Gulf coast resemble the places most amphibious landings would be like. If you have a small military (somewhere around 40% the size of the Cold War force) that's where it would logically go- into the southern half of the country.

It's time to let the Cold War be over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. the only objection I have to what you say is
the only 2 places that have been attacked on U.S. soil in recent
memory has been NY and DC, I remember there was something about the
fact that they could not get the fighter jets to respond fast enough,
I hate to think what would happen if they had to come from Atlanta
and not NJ. After Iraq, I think there is more of a possibility for
another terrorist strike in the Northeast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Another method of gerrymandering n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-24-05 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. What's the property like?
They are shutting down the Navy Home port in trent lott's home town, but I don't see it as shutting it down as much as vacating it for corporate development. The chamber of commerce/economic development folks didn't seem upset at all. They can sell the newly constructe buildings and land to cruise ships that are look for a deep port to utilize, to gaming interests (MS has gaming on the water), for oil/gas interests (big push to put rigs out in the Gulf.

The USofA (our tax dollars) just paid to have the area developed and the infrastructure put in place for the corporate interests :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. they're also shutting down Walter Reed Hospital
prime real estate in DC, what would a wounded soldier rather have
a realtor or a good doctor. HMMM, that's a tough one, remember I
don't speak republicanese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I saw that and wondered what could be their ulterior motives.
Edited on Thu Aug-25-05 11:17 PM by merh
So, Walter Reed site is prime real estate in DC. Gee, guess they need more office space in DC or condos or hotels.

:cry: Those wounded soldiers can get their care elsewhere. :argh:


:hi: It's good to see you Miss Waverly :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Good to see you as well, Merh
I also wanted to mention that closing down Walter Reed is possible
payback to DC, which is a democratic town. (They don't have representation in the Senate) but their mayor Anthony Williams is a democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreatCaesarsGhost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. they want to privatize military health care
let the tax payers pay to consolidate it all and then sell it off

to haliburton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Of course, Outsource it, the Republican answer to all problems
Ding, Ding, you win the prize for an astute DU'er, I applaud your
logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. make us weaker
damage "blue" communities

stupidity and incompetence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. I don't know why else they would want to close
Ft. McPherson except to punish (Dem) Mayor Shirley Franklin. Georgia gets a net gain due to other moves (Repub Gov.).

And tell me saving Ellsworth over the Pentagons objection is not a gimme to Thune.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-26-05 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. Move the military away from DC in case of a nuclear attack <--------------
Edited on Fri Aug-26-05 04:41 PM by jsamuel
risk mitigation

if you notice, I will quote a Republican Senator...

"100 mile limit"

What is the radius of a nuclear explosion?

100 miles
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC