NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering about the network of military bases in the colonies. What does it cost to maintain them in S-Korea, Germany, Japan etc.....And who picks up the bills? I heard the German taxpayers are beeing robbed of roughly a billion (Euros/dollars) a year. How is that in the other countries who are currently under US occupation? Credible sources are appreciated.

Heard from who exactly?

Heard from who exactly?
From someone on here. Forgot his/her name.

I'd like to see their sources...A billion Euros a year seems....a bit off...

I'd like to see their sources...A billion Euros a year seems....a bit off...
Thats the point I created this thread. And I'm not sure wether they meant Dollars or Euros.

I heard the german ones were to be closed by Bush?
But it might harm Germany's massive Coca Cola producing industry! :eek:

I heard the german ones were to be closed by Bush?

I doubt I will live to see the day that they give up Ramstein airbase. :(
But how about it folks? Sources. Articles. Etc....
Anyone?

Typically the US leases the land the bases are on. I believe the standard is 99 years. The cost of operating the base falls to the US military. They often use civilian contractors native to the area - meaning that the bases create a net income in their respective regions. There is no cost to the host nation as the US military is not a 'force for hire'. Any argument to the contrary would have to be extrordinarily well made to get my consideration. About the only point I could consider would be the possible value of the land to local developers if put to other use. Even then it is a speculative estimate, and since it is not a line item expense is dubious (at best) to claim it as an 'expense'.

I cannot answer for other bases, but the Japan Times has noted from time to time that the Japanese goverment doesn't pay for the American bases in Japan (unless it's a joint base with the various SDF branches) and that America pays rent.

One of the issues is that the rent being paid is less than the land is worth on the open market (so says the folks of Okinawa and those around the Chiba/Tokyo/Yokohama area bases). Well, that and all the money pumped into the local economy doesn't make up for misbehaving servicemen and helicoptors falling on your city.

Typically the US leases the land the bases are on. I believe the standard is 99 years. The cost of operating the base falls to the US military. They often use civilian contractors native to the area - meaning that the bases create a net income in their respective regions. There is no cost to the host nation as the US military is not a 'force for hire'. Any argument to the contrary would have to be extrordinarily well made to get my consideration. About the only point I could consider would be the possible value of the land to local developers if put to other use. Even then it is a speculative estimate, and since it is not a line item expense is dubious (at best) to claim it as an 'expense'.

Pretty much accure, we've got one here and it creates jobs (though it's shrunk since the cold-war). The price we paid was a little red button in Moscow marked "Reykjavík".

Pretty much accure, we've got one here and it creates jobs (though it's shrunk since the cold-war). The price we paid was a little red button in Moscow marked "Reykjavík".

Iceland is, however, a law unto itself here as it has no military of its own, and so the entire defense operation is in effect in the hands of the USA, am I right?

Hey!!! Hello??? What about the stationing costs? Sources please people.

Oh. Number 5000.

first off, it saves the Germans a hellalot in the long term, and I do know that South Korea pays for a significant (no, I don't know what exactly significant constitutes, it was the word used by national geographic) proportion of the cost there

first off, it saves the Germans a hellalot in the long term
Very, VERY doubtfull. But that wasn't my initial question. You've got any sources about the annual costs?

Very, VERY doubtfull. But that wasn't my initial question. You've got any sources about the annual costs?

nien, but the DOD might, try their site or google it

Iceland is, however, a law unto itself here as it has no military of its own, and so the entire defense operation is in effect in the hands of the USA, am I right?

It's a weird relationship. It wasn't exactly negotiated. Iceland was occupied by the british in WW2 (with force, iceland was neutral). When the Americans joined in the war they took over the occupation because the British forces were getting stretched. The Americans then paid money, built airports etc as payment for Iceland letting them stay on after the war. Iceland later on, became a member of NATO, so defense isn't the issue. It's money.
Of course the forces are much much smaller...I remember an American "town" full of life when I was a kid, where the soldiers lived just outside of Reykjavík(though, nobody was allowed to enter, but you could see through the fences). Now all that remains are a couple of fighter jets and helicopters.

Ah. Found it. Now you can go on about...whatever you were talking about.
My god. The 1 billion Euro's isn't that far off as it seems. In 2000 $1.2 billion or 922,321,629.31 Euro's were sucked from the taxpayers pockets to support foreign occupation troops.

Ah. Found it. Now you can go on about...whatever you were talking about.
My god. The 1 billion Euro's isn't that far off as it seems. In 2000 $1.2 billion or 922,321,629.31 Euro's were sucked from the taxpayers pockets to support foreign occupation troops.Source please?

Source please?
Sorry.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib2002/02-Chptr2/02-Chptr_2tx.html

I cannot answer for other bases, but the Japan Times has noted from time to time that the Japanese goverment doesn't pay for the American bases in Japan (unless it's a joint base with the various SDF branches) and that America pays rent.

One of the issues is that the rent being paid is less than the land is worth on the open market (so says the folks of Okinawa and those around the Chiba/Tokyo/Yokohama area bases). Well, that and all the money pumped into the local economy doesn't make up for misbehaving servicemen and helicoptors falling on your city.

so what kind of economy does Okinawa have if the US forces leave? Japan planning to do some big time investing in Okinawa in the near future? If memory serves, traditional view of Okinawa has been similar to traditional views of other "non-Japanese" living in Japan. Has this changed markedly?

From a basing viewpoint, the Marines could just as easily shift their 3rd Division to Guam or even Palau (which the US still has a treaty giving the US rights to bases there). The loss of airbases in Okinawa would be more important and detrimental to South Korean security, and possibly Japanese security. Guess it depends on your view of Chinese goals in the region.

Sorry.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib2002/02-Chptr2/02-Chptr_2tx.html

however you might want to mention that according to the source, Germany pays only 21% of the costs of US troops stationed there, mostly in waived rents and taxes.

As far as 'occupation" goes, perhaps West Germany could have passed on joining NATO.... although at the time there was positive eagerness by West Germans to avoid the fate of East Germans.

I was wondering about the network of military bases in the colonies. What does it cost to maintain them in S-Korea, Germany, Japan etc.....And who picks up the bills? I heard the German taxpayers are beeing robbed of roughly a billion (Euros/dollars) a year. How is that in the other countries who are currently under US occupation? Credible sources are appreciated.

In korea, but not exactly an "expert." (Is anyone, really?) I would not call it an "occupation" because, in Korea for example, it is a join operation. The cost is relatively low considering the land that the bases rely on have bene built for a while (see: Korean War). Although some bases are new, it is on undeveloped land. The cost to maintain is relatively low because local nationals are hired to work certain jobs on post, building international relations as well as job opportunities.

however you might want to mention that according to the source, Germany pays only 21% of the costs of US troops stationed there, mostly in waived rents and taxes.
And thats $1.2 that has to come out of the taxpayers pockets since it's not coming out of the pockets of the occupation forces.

As far as 'occupation" goes, perhaps West Germany could have passed on joining NATO.... although at the time there was positive eagerness by West Germans to avoid the fate of East Germans.
Beeing the first battlefield between the Soviets and the Americans can have that effect.

In korea, but not exactly an "expert." (Is anyone, really?) I would not call it an "occupation" because, in Korea for example, it is a join operation. The cost is relatively low considering the land that the bases rely on have bene built for a while (see: Korean War). Although some bases are new, it is on undeveloped land. The cost to maintain is relatively low because local nationals are hired to work certain jobs on post, building international relations as well as job opportunities.
Wasn't it originally build by the Japanese?

Wasn't it originally build by the Japanese?

What, the posts? Not the most recent ones... bear in mind they've been referbished every 15 years or so, and most of the older, once-Japanese posts have been torn down and re-introduced into local economy and infrastructure.

I was wondering about the network of military bases in the colonies. What does it cost to maintain them in S-Korea, Germany, Japan etc.....And who picks up the bills? I heard the German taxpayers are beeing robbed of roughly a billion (Euros/dollars) a year. How is that in the other countries who are currently under US occupation? Credible sources are appreciated.

I’m sorry, colonies? occupation? Sheech, left wing nuts. The U.S. is not an occupying force. Not in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. If we were we would not have left the Philippines, Panama, or France when they asked us to. If you want us out I’m sure we can find somewhere else to base our troops. How about… home, and the next time you Euro’s get into a shooting match we can tell you to piss off.

I’m sorry, colonies? occupation? Sheech, left wing nuts. The U.S. is not an occupying force. Not in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. If we were we would not have left the Philippines, Panama, or France when they asked us to. If you want us out I’m sure we can find somewhere else to base our troops. How about… home, and the next time you Euro’s get into a shooting match we can tell you to piss off.

Hammerstad is right about the US pullout when requested... any comments on that Witzleben? As far as German taxpayers dollars go, the Germans are paying a lot less now than they were in 1992 after the Cold War finally ended. Perhaps Germany should look at renegotiating the NATO treaty. Be that as it may, the US is looking at leaving Germany and shifting to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, and possibly even Rumania, as they are closer to potential crisis points in the Mideast.

I have read that local Germans are not entirely pleased with that as just as in the US, the bases spend a lot of money in the local economy. Which is why the US still has more bases than it needs in the US.

Hammerstad is right about the US pullout when requested... any comments on that Witzleben?
They could pull out on their own as a sign of good faith. Since the puppets in the government would rather bite off their tongues then ask them to leave. I'd wish they would bite off their tongue. At least we wouldn't have to listen to the shit their spouting anymore. And with some luck they's bleed to death.

As far as German taxpayers dollars go, the Germans are paying a lot less now than they were in 1992 after the Cold War finally ended.
Well yeah. Less occupation forces less costs. Still, how would you like to have foreign occupation forces in your part of the world and pick up their tab?
Perhaps Germany should look at renegotiating the NATO treaty.
NATO should be dissolved all together.
Be that as it may, the US is looking at leaving Germany and shifting to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, and possibly even Rumania, as they are closer to potential crisis points in the Mideast.
But I bet you they won't return Ramsteim and keep at least a view other places as well.

I have read that local Germans are not entirely pleased with that as just as in the US, the bases spend a lot of money in the local economy. Which is why the US still has more bases than it needs in the US.
According to Peter Struck, secretary of defence, closing military installations is a blessing for the region. Since the facilities can now be utilized for other commercial purposes. At least thats what he statet after closing 100 installations of the Bundeswehr. So I don't see any problems. :D

According to Peter Struck, secretary of defence, closing military installations is a blessing for the region. Since the facilities can now be utilized for other commercial purposes. At least thats what he statet after closing 100 installations of the Bundeswehr. So I don't see any problems. :D

yes, that arguement has floated around the US as well (regarding US bases).. and its basically true... but getting it to happen isn't easy politically.

NATO doesn't exist just to defend Germany by the way, a big historical reason it exists is to ensure the US and Canada remain engaged in Europe to keep an eye on Germany. Something about 20th Century German expansionism.

Imagine that.

However, there is a sizeable opinion that has traditionally existed in North America (including Canada) that has basically said all along that the Europeans should have to deal with Germany and leave us out of it. History has not proven that to be a good move, I suspect NATO wil be around for a while yet.

NATO doesn't exist just to defend Germany by the way, a big historical reason it exists is to ensure the US and Canada remain engaged in Europe to keep an eye on Germany. Something about 20th Century German expansionism.
I know. Hence the term: US/hostile-occupation forces.
Plus NATO is the US's tool to keep the rest of Europe under it's military thumb as well. Except for France. Charles De Gaulle was the only one with enough sense to see what the US was planning. And act accordingly.
Vive la France.

so what kind of economy does Okinawa have if the US forces leave? Japan planning to do some big time investing in Okinawa in the near future? If memory serves, traditional view of Okinawa has been similar to traditional views of other "non-Japanese" living in Japan. Has this changed markedly?
Hard to say. Currently the unemployment rate in Okinawa is higher than the rest of Japan, and yes, native Okinawans are not viewed as fully Japanese. However, there are few full blooded Okinawans left (kinda like the Ainu). But on the other hand, I've also heard that Okinawa's economy is starting to pick up steam with tourism being the biggest push. One the arguments for removing the bases off Okinawa (Besides the fact that as the smallest prefecture, Okinawa hosts 70% of US forces in Japan), is that it's hard to devlop the land when most of the avalible land is under a US military base.

Not saying I agree with the people of Okinawa, I'm just reporting what the arguments are.

From a basing viewpoint, the Marines could just as easily shift their 3rd Division to Guam or even Palau (which the US still has a treaty giving the US rights to bases there). The loss of airbases in Okinawa would be more important and detrimental to South Korean security, and possibly Japanese security. Guess it depends on your view of Chinese goals in the region.
Again, hard to say. The current realignment of troops calls for the bases to shift to the Japanese main islands (Honshu), but no one there wants them either.

Mainly it's a case of no one wants to have a US military base living next door, even if the troops behave themselves, and the Okinawans just want them off the island instead of having to play host to 70% of them.

Washington is willing to move off of Okinawa (mostly) into another part of Japan, and Tokyo keeps trying to, but the local areas will not let a new base be built.

I know. Hence the term: US/hostile-occupation forces.
Plus NATO is the US's tool to keep the rest of Europe under it's military thumb as well. Except for France. Charles De Gaulle was the only one with enough sense to see what the US was planning. And act accordingly.
Vive la France.

chuckle... nobody had that opinion when he did it...

by the way, are you considering the Dutch, Canadian, British, and French forces that remain in Germany to this day occupation forces to? After all, the British and to a lesser extent (numerically) the French and Canadians conquered the Third Reich as well.

Did I miss something? It was my understanding that NATO was mainly to confront the USSR. NATO just allowed for real estate exchanges for US bases and nuke silos.

Which is why NATO has been flopping around like a dead fish looking for justification to keep on going as the USSR no longer is with us and parts of the Warsaw Pact are now joing NATO.

So where did the idea that it was for keeping an eye on Germany come from?

Did I miss something? It was my understanding that NATO was mainly to confront the USSR. NATO just allowed for real estate exchanges for US bases and nuke silos.

Which is why NATO has been flopping around like a dead fish looking for justification to keep on going as the USSR no longer is with us and parts of the Warsaw Pact are now joing NATO.

So where did the idea that it was for keeping an eye on Germany come from?

the initial selling point in regards to the treaty back in 1949 included that premise. It was generally unstated, but pretty clearly understood by everyone, including the Germans (most of the political leaders in West Germany at that time had survived Nazi concentration camps by the way).

But yes, primarily NATO was to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Its current mission is now a bit hazy.

the initial selling point in regards to the treaty back in 1949 included that premise. It was generally unstated, but pretty clearly understood by everyone, including the Germans (most of the political leaders in West Germany at that time had survived Nazi concentration camps by the way).
Ah! I see, thank you.

I was wondering about the network of military bases in the colonies. What does it cost to maintain them in S-Korea, Germany, Japan etc.....And who picks up the bills? I heard the German taxpayers are beeing robbed of roughly a billion (Euros/dollars) a year. How is that in the other countries who are currently under US occupation? Credible sources are appreciated.

They're not colonies, for starters.

James Dunnigan has written a series of books that detail what the costs and benefits are.

As an example, there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of US troops and bases in Germany since 1990. At the peak of the Cold War, there were over 300,000 US troops in Germany - now there are something like 1/10th of that number, and even those are slated to be withdrawn.

The US paid for leasing the bases. That money came out of US Defense budgets. The US, under the Status of Forces Agreement (which you can read for yourself) provided for compensation for maneuver damage (I remember paying for a small sapling that I ran over).

And, US troops spent money in Germany. At the peak of the occupation, that amounted to approximately 500 billion dollars on the German economy.

I've been to the town where I was stationed in the late 1980s. None of the bars and restaurants that we frequented are open - even ten years later, they are closed.

They're not colonies, for starters.

James Dunnigan has written a series of books that detail what the costs and benefits are.

As an example, there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of US troops and bases in Germany since 1990. At the peak of the Cold War, there were over 300,000 US troops in Germany - now there are something like 1/10th of that number, and even those are slated to be withdrawn.

The US paid for leasing the bases. That money came out of US Defense budgets. The US, under the Status of Forces Agreement (which you can read for yourself) provided for compensation for maneuver damage (I remember paying for a small sapling that I ran over).

And, US troops spent money in Germany. At the peak of the occupation, that amounted to approximately 500 billion dollars on the German economy.

I've been to the town where I was stationed in the late 1980s. None of the bars and restaurants that we frequented are open - even ten years later, they are closed.

Tough luck, but life goes on. By the way, want to leave the Azores base? Pwease? :D

Tough luck, but life goes on. By the way, want to leave the Azores base? Pwease? :D

Good question. I know that most of the Cold War bases have been drawn down, eliminated, or moved to another country.

Rumsfeld's big thing is to eliminate bases. He's definitely got the desire to eliminate all bases in Germany for good, and has already gotten us out of Saudi Arabia and Puerto Rico.

Don't want the base? Don't want the soldiers, or their money? Then we're probably leaving.

chuckle... nobody had that opinion when he did it...
Like I said. He was the only one with enough brains to do what was right in that case.

by the way, are you considering the Dutch, Canadian, British, and French forces that remain in Germany to this day occupation forces to? After all, the British and to a lesser extent (numerically) the French and Canadians conquered the Third Reich as well.
No. They are friends and allies.

No. They are friends and allies.

And how is the US not an ally? Says so in the Status of Forces Agreement, and says so in the NATO treaty.

And how is the US not an ally?
They are a hostile occupation force.
Says so in the Status of Forces Agreement, and says so in the NATO treaty.
A waste of ink and paper. Since it was dictatet by the US. Barely good enough to wipe ones behind with.

They're not colonies, for starters.
I guess your right. Sattelite or vasal states is a better name for them.

Says so in the Status of Forces Agreement, and says so in the NATO treaty.

Ah, those international treaties...
What does the genevan convention on prisoners of war say?

I guess your right. Sattelite or vasal states is a better name for them.

If Germany was a "vassal", it would have voted for the war in Iraq, neh?

If Germany was a "vassal", it would have voted for the war in Iraq, neh?
They did allow the use of the bases in Germany as well as the airspace.

They did allow the use of the bases in Germany as well as the airspace.
That was the NATO treaty.

NATO is a far more credible organization than the UN. After all, it was NATO, not the UN, that intervened in Kosovo, eh?

But if Germany is a vassal, then why didn't its leaders politically support the war in Iraq. Perhaps they're an independent country?

That was the NATO treaty.
As far as I know NATO wasn't the one beeing attacked.



But if Germany is a vassal, then why didn't its leaders politically support the war in Iraq. Perhaps they're an independent country?
They had an election to win. Their overlord chose a poor moment to kick off his campaign for worlddomination.
So then why did they closed down all of Mainz when the warlord came for an inspection? Closing down an entire city and placing foreign deathsquads on the roofs for a foreign warlord is hardly the action of an independ country.

As far as I know NATO wasn't the one beeing attacked.

NATO doesn't have to be attacked. It's a base sharing thing.
They had an election to win. Their overlord chose a poor moment to kick off his campaign for worlddomination.
So then why did they closed down all of Mainz when the warlord came for an inspection? Closing down an entire city and placing foreign deathsquads on the roofs for a foreign warlord is hardly the action of an independ country.
"Foreign deathsquads"? Don't make me laugh.

A "deathsquad" rounds people up and shoots them. You know, like the SS.

They engage in wholesale liquidation. That's the definition. Can you post some evidence that "US deathsquads" have liquidated thousands of people in Mainz?

NATO doesn't have to be attacked. It's a base sharing thing.
Which doesn't mean they have to give passage through their airspace.



A "deathsquad" rounds people up and shoots them. You know, like the SS.


Yes. Thats who I meant. The secret service and other US personell like them. And deathsquads don't have to go around all day and shoot people to be deathsquads.

Which doesn't mean they have to give passage through their airspace.

NATO treaty requires it.
Yes. Thats who I meant. The secret service and other US personell like them. And deathsquads don't have to go around all day and shoot people to be deathsquads.
Last I heard, there's no resemblance between the uniforms, tactics, underlying philosophy, and mission of the Waffen SS and the US Secret Service. If bodyguards are "deathsquads", then most governments have them. Not just the US.

I guess this explains the German official (a rather low level one) who had six bodyguards in Ulm that I saw at my hotel - the men were armed with SIG 550 assault rifles and an HK21 belt fed machinegun. Maybe you have a lot of deathsquads too (then again, it's a German tradition).

NATO treaty requires it.
So much for an independ nation. Germany like other nations are enemy controled states.



I guess this explains the German official (a rather low level one) who had six bodyguards in Ulm that I saw at my hotel - the men were armed with SIG 550 assault rifles and an HK21 belt fed machinegun. Maybe you have a lot of deathsquads too (then again, it's a German tradition).
No. Those are close personell protection experts. More commonly known as bodyguards. As for tradition. Ranger deathsquads have a longstanding tradition in the US in killing off those red savages.

No. Those are close personell protection experts. More commonly known as bodyguards. As for tradition. Ranger deathsquads have a longstanding tradition in the US in killing off those red savages.

Rangers are not US Secret Service.

Rangers, as a unit, fought in the French and Indian War (so it wasn't a "red savages" thing - it was a major war involving more than just the "red savages"). In addition, no US Ranger unit has ever been involved since that time in any operations against "red savages" (whom I believe you mean to be Native Americans or First People). Ranger units didn't exist after the French and Indian War until World War II. Neither did the Rangers, even in the French and Indian War, act as deathsquads. So it's not a "longstanding tradition" unless you want to invent history.

The US Secret Service is nothing but bodyguards.

And deathsquads don't have to go around all day and shoot people to be deathsquads.


????? Then what is a deathsquad?

The US Secret Service is nothing but bodyguards.

Sorry to correct you, but they are mainly responsible for currency work. Counterfiting and whatnaut. Only a small percentage actually work for the President.

Sorry to correct you, but they are mainly responsible for currency work. Counterfiting and whatnaut. Only a small percentage actually work for the President.
Yah, forgot about that. Boring police work. But Von thinks that our Rangers and Secret Service are out rounding up innocent civilians in the middle of the night and shooting them into freshly dug pits. Might be some confusion over the abbreviation:

USSS - United States Secret Service

Waffen SS - well, you know, the guys who did the Final Solution.

Not the same guys, no matter how hard you twist history.

Yah, forgot about that. Boring police work. But Von thinks that our Rangers and Secret Service are out rounding up innocent civilians in the middle of the night and shooting them into freshly dug pits.
I'm well aware that the CIA and even the US miltitary contributes to that as well.

I'm well aware that the CIA and even the US miltitary contributes to that as well.

As far as I can tell, the Secret Service never kills anyone. Heck, they haven't even shot the people who attempt to kill the President over the years.

The Rangers don't execute anyone - not in the manner you're thinking - the killing of unarmed civilians execution-style.

The CIA may have done some of that in the Vietnam War, but certainly not after the Church hearings, which were decades ago.

And it doesn't seem to be happenning in the US as a matter of government policy.

Are you sure you're OK?

As far as I can tell, the Secret Service never kills anyone. Heck, they haven't even shot the people who attempt to kill the President over the years.
Hence the word secret service.



The CIA may have done some of that in the Vietnam War, but certainly not after the Church hearings, which were decades ago.

And it doesn't seem to be happenning in the US as a matter of government policy.

Are you sure you're OK?
They prefer to do their snatching and torturing/killing outside of the US.

They prefer to do their snatching and torturing/killing outside of the US.

After the Church hearings, that sort of thing stopped, even on the part of the CIA. There was a resumption of that sort of thing during Reagan intervention in Central America, but it wasn't the CIA doing the torturing/killing - they were only advisors, and the locals did the killing (as did the other side - so no one had clean hands in those matters).

Then it got quiet again. Until 9-11. Now the killing is done by Special Forces, not Rangers, not CIA, not Secret Service. In fact, it is a subset of Special Forces that does the work of snatching and killing around the world - but the only target is al-Qaeda.

Better, say, than the French SDECE, who got their kicks blowing up the Rainbow Warrior and killing Greenpeace members. Oh, you said the French were your allies? Nice.

It's no use arguing with him, guys. Von is obviously convinced that the US is irredeemably EVIL. Or something like that. Just leave him to his madness.

They had an election to win. Their overlord chose a poor moment to kick off his campaign for worlddomination.
So then why did they closed down all of Mainz when the warlord came for an inspection? Closing down an entire city and placing foreign deathsquads on the roofs for a foreign warlord is hardly the action of an independ country.

The best argument I have yet to hear anyone make for keepsing drugs illegal. We should probably throw in alcohol as well.

It's no use arguing with him, guys. Von is obviously convinced that the US is irredeemably EVIL. Or something like that. Just leave him to his madness.

Or maybe he was trolling and WL fell for it

This is a very funny thread. Funny because it's quite entertaining seeing someone debunked with facts and that person still back peddles and sticks to his/her guns. Pride can be such a negative trait sometimes.

Or maybe he was trolling and WL fell for it
Von always talks like this. He feels the need to get that US oppression off his chest. That's ok.

I think it also makes him feel better to hear from me, so that his conception of evil Americans is reinforced.

Von always talks like this. He feels the need to get that US oppression off his chest. That's ok.

I think it also makes him feel better to hear from me, so that his conception of evil Americans is reinforced.

Could be.

I admire you patience though, I would have either thrown up my hands and started agreeing with him(so he would go away) or hit the ignore button

No. They are friends and allies.

so basically you are just Anti American then, not anti NATO?

The whole point of NATO from the European perspective at the time was to keep the North Americans (including Canada) engaged in Europe and not have the situation revert back to the what happened after World War I.

the status of force agreements are exactly the same for the other NATO troops stationed in Germany (just as it is for the Americans)

Von's just upset that his country was seriously embaressed in 2 world wars.

so basically you are just Anti American then, not anti NATO?

The whole point of NATO from the European perspective at the time was to keep the North Americans (including Canada) engaged in Europe and not have the situation revert back to the what happened after World War I.

the status of force agreements are exactly the same for the other NATO troops stationed in Germany (just as it is for the Americans)

okay...but do you know the reason,why americans are stationed in europe?Ther is a pretty good series on ARTE(French/german cultural TV-station),called "With open cards"....and the point is,that american troops aren't needed for defence in Germany...the only sense they make is the one as Employers in those cities

okay...but do you know the reason,why americans are stationed in europe?Ther is a pretty good series on ARTE(French/german cultural TV-station),called "With open cards"....and the point is,that american troops aren't needed for defence in Germany...the only sense they make is the one as Employers in those cities

actually inertia and inability of large organizations to make change quickly is a better arguement. Although having them there has been handy twice for interventions in the Persian Gulf, plus a brigade was operating in the Balkans for a time (and still is) and some were sent to Afghanistan as well. After all, Europe is a lot closer to hot spots than North America.

Not a real big need to defend the Germans now though, thats true. Besides, if the Germans get cranky again, the Brits and French have nukes to keep them in line.

I am not defending the need to keep US forces in Germany, simply pointing out why they were present to begin with and ensuring the anti American slant initially taken is balanced by other views that are reasonably and logically put.

*applauds Von Witzleben*
Excellent posts, my friend!

By the way, considering the nuclear threat from Britain and France, I think it would be wise to arm up and get our own nukes to look strong *chuckle*

It's no use arguing with him, guys. Von is obviously convinced that the US is irredeemably EVIL. Or something like that. Just leave him to his madness.


He needs the US to be evil. Then everything will be in order for him. He likes everything in order.

so basically you are just Anti American then, not anti NATO?
NATO is an American organisation. No matter what name you slap on it.

Ein Deutscher']*applauds Von Witzleben*
Excellent posts, my friend!

By the way, considering the nuclear threat from Britain and France, I think it would be wise to arm up and get our own nukes to look strong *chuckle*
Sprich dich ruhig aus. Ami-Igors findet man auf allen foren. :rolleyes:

Sprich dich ruhig aus. Ami-Igors findet man auf allen foren. :rolleyes:

Just what this game needs, another unemployed German with a chip on his shoulder...Kinda like Ein Deutscher. I love it when you guys point the finger when you can't take care of your own country.

NATO is an American organisation. No matter what name you slap on it.

NATO is a more effective international organization than the UN, no matter what you might think of it.

You know, I wouldn't even shead as much as a single tear if the U.S. were to close their bases today.

Go. Away. Shoo!

It'll probably take another 60 years to clean up all the chemicals and what-not waste the bases put into the German soil.

And I'd be aware if it cost the German taxpayer money to have them here.

So, Amis go home - here's $ 1,- Thanks for nothing!

You know, I wouldn't even shead as much as a single tear if the U.S. were to close their bases today.

Go. Away. Shoo!

It'll probably take another 60 years to clean up all the chemicals and what-not waste the bases put into the German soil.

And I'd be aware if it cost the German taxpayer money to have them here.

So, Amis go home - here's $ 1,- Thanks for nothing!

Actually, U.S. bases (overseas and within the U.S.) clean up all materials before they are reintroduced into the local area. Water, soil, fuel, contaminated combinations thereof, any waste is filtered and cleaned before it is allowed to contact the area outside of a post.

You know, I wouldn't even shead as much as a single tear if the U.S. were to close their bases today.

Go. Away. Shoo!

It'll probably take another 60 years to clean up all the chemicals and what-not waste the bases put into the German soil.

And I'd be aware if it cost the German taxpayer money to have them here.

So, Amis go home - here's $ 1,- Thanks for nothing!

Most of us are already gone. If you're really a German, you would have known this - there are plenty of former bases being used to house indigent Germans.

The base I used to be at in the late 1980s is a welfare housing project now.

I know. Hence the term: US/hostile-occupation forces.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Was it a hostile act for me to marry a German girl?
Was it a hostile act for me to spend a great portion of my pay on the local economy?
Was it a hostile act for me to travel around and spend time in the beautiful country that Germany is?
Was it a hostile act for me to spend my free time, working, as American Vice President of Kontact, the German/American Friendship Club?
Working to insure that all the logistic support that the U.S. Army could provide, was provided?
I have MANY German friends who would completely disagree with your positions.
I consider it a privilage to have spent two tours in Germany, and have many wonderful memories of my time there, (Hohenfels and Graf not withstanding :D ), and when I see such misguided opinion of our intent, I can only assume it is of someone who did not live in East Germany, and has little memory of what happened in Berlin and East Germany.
You should have studied harder in school.
You should talk to your grandfathers and great-grandfathers about what the Russians were like. And maybe ask them if the Russians felt they had good reason for such brutality after event/places like Stalingrad.
26 million Russians died as the Nazis pushed East.
When Russia began pushing West again they did so with equal retribution and brutality.
Politics suck.
Politicians suck even more, ALL of them.
You should more closely question EVERYTHING, not those whom you percive to be the boogyman. ;)

You really don't have a clue, do you?
Was it a hostile act for me to marry a German girl?
Was it a hostile act for me to spend a great portion of my pay on the local economy?
Was it a hostile act for me to travel around and spend time in the beautiful country that Germany is?
Was it a hostile act for me to spend my free time, working, as American Vice President of Kontact, the German/American Friendship Club?
Working to insure that all the logistic support that the U.S. Army could provide, was provided?
I have MANY German friends who would completely disagree with your positions.
I consider it a privilage to have spent two tours in Germany, and have many wonderful memories of my time there, (Hohenfels and Graf not withstanding :D ), and when I see such misguided opinion of our intent, I can only assume it is of someone who did not live in East Germany, and has little memory of what happened in Berlin and East Germany.
You should have studied harder in school.
You should talk to your grandfathers and great-grandfathers about what the Russians were like. And maybe ask them if the Russians felt they had good reason for such brutality after event/places like Stalingrad.
26 million Russians died as the Nazis pushed East.
When Russia began pushing West again they did so with equal retribution and brutality.
Politics suck.
Politicians suck even more, ALL of them.
You should more closely question EVERYTHING, not those whom you percive to be the boogyman. ;)

No sense in telling him the good things, these particular Germans hate Americans.

It'll probably take another 60 years to clean up all the chemicals and what-not waste the bases put into the German soil.
:D VERY FEW of the US Bases were NOT BASES ALREADY, so when we leave we'll be cleaning up the mess from everyone, the Kaiser, the Nazis, the whole gang.
We just stepped in and used what was already there.

No sense in telling him the good things.
Cause there aren't any.

I was wondering about the network of military bases in the colonies. What does it cost to maintain them in S-Korea, Germany, Japan etc.....And who picks up the bills? I heard the German taxpayers are beeing robbed of roughly a billion (Euros/dollars) a year. How is that in the other countries who are currently under US occupation? Credible sources are appreciated.

lol @ "occupation"

too, too funny... and dead wrong.

Cause there aren't any.
Yes, and the only reason I visit Europe every year is to indulge in my habit of vampirism.

Cause there aren't any.
Von Klueless!

i wonder if any of these anti-american Germans have considered that if not for America, a third of their country would still be Soviet and there'd still be a wall in Berlin.

...doesn't sound like it.
---

or Europe might be singing (still) the Horst Wessel song.

(okay, okay, enough. hehe)

i do love wienerschnitzel and Wahrsteiner.

Yes, and the only reason I visit Europe every year is to indulge in my habit of vampirism.
I believe you.

i wonder if any of these anti-american Germans have considered that if not for America, a third of their country would still be Soviet and there'd still be a wall in Berlin.

...doesn't sound like it.
No, they would have liked that. These are probably the same guys who were paid to protest during the heyday of the Cold War. Now that there isn't anyone who is going to pay 40 marks a day for them to shout anti-American slogans, they're out of work.

i wonder if any of these anti-american Germans have considered that if not for America, a third of their country would still be Soviet and there'd still be a wall in Berlin.
Oh yeah. Here we go again. The infamouse: You owe us!!! argument. Wanna throw a: We saved France!!! in as well?

Oh yeah. Here we go again. The infamouse: You owe us!!! argument. Wanna throw a: We saved France!!! in as well?

not much pisses me off as much as an ungrateful swine. you know how many americans died so that your country could get rid of the Soviets?

thank them.

i wonder if any of these anti-american Germans have considered that if not for America, a third of their country would still be Soviet and there'd still be a wall in Berlin.

...doesn't sound like it.
---

and Europe might be singing (still) the Horst Wessel song.

(okay, okay, enough. hehe)

i do love wienerschnitzel and Wahrsteiner.
The Berlin Wall was torn down by the people of East Germany who revolted peacefully. Since you weren't there, you are clueles. I was there, since I was a citizen of the GDR until the reunification. A lot of work was done by the then FRG chancellor Kohl, foreign minister Genscher and Russian president Michail Gorbachev. The American president merely used the obvious signs of the time to join in and get some political capital while the opportunity was there.

From January 1973 through September 1975 (Bad Kreuznach, and Dexheim...and a little bit of Graf) I was a member of what Von Witlessbaum calls the "occupation". The majority of Germans - well, they were West Germans then - were very friendly, and very glad to have us there. I lived on the economy, and spent more of my time with the local people than with the GIs. Of course, there were some that would have preferred that we were not there. But they were a minority.

As to what it costs Germany to have us there - it's the other way around. I'm not sure that at the end of WW II the US was leasing the properties they used, but I do know that by the '70s we were.

Of course there's been no mention of the Marshall Plan in the anti American propaganda posts. It wouldn't look good to mention that while denegrating the US - kind of like trying to blame Santa Claus for the smudges of soot on the mantle while unwrapping the piles of presents under the tree.

not much pisses me off as much as an ungrateful swine.

deze nuts, juggle.

It wasn't just the US who saved Germany. It was all of the Allies. And instead of leaving the place in ruins, we all helped put it back together again.

Probably the whole reason these guys are upset about the US doing the "invade, write constitution, hold elections, rebuild" thing in Iraq is because it reminds them of their humiliation.

Oh yeah. Here we go again. The infamouse: You owe us!!! argument. Wanna throw a: We saved France!!! in as well?
If not for the glorious Americans who slaughtered the Indians, the world would probably be speaking Indianese now and we'd all be red-skins :D

Ein Deutscher']The Berlin Wall was torn down by the people of East Germany who revolted peacefully. Since you weren't there, you are clueles. I was there, since I was a citizen of the GDR until the reunification. A lot of work was done by the then FRG chancellor Kohl, foreign minister Genscher and Russian president Michail Gorbachev. The American president merely used the obvious signs of the time to join in and get some political capital while the opportunity was there.

...and our involvement in the Cold War with the USSR had nothing to do with their inability to stop the wall crumbling.

I see...

From January 1973 through September 1975 (Bad Kreuznach, and Dexheim...and a little bit of Graf) I was a member of what Von Witlessbaum calls the "occupation". The majority of Germans - well, they were East Germans then - were very friendly, and very glad to have us there. I lived on the economy, and spent more of my time with the local people than with the GIs. Of course, there were some that would have preferred that we were not there. But they were a minority.
Oh yeah. I'm witless. And the East-German majority was glad to have GI's there to protect them from the communist dictator in the West. What was his name again? Oh yeah. Adolf Hitler.

It wasn't just the US who saved Germany. It was all of the Allies.
Oh. Now you saved Germany as well huh?

Probably the whole reason these guys are upset about the US doing the "invade, write constitution, hold elections, rebuild" thing in Iraq is because it reminds them of their humiliation.
Probably not.

Ein Deutscher']If not for the glorious Americans who slaughtered the Indians, the world would probably be speaking Indianese now and we'd all be red-skins :D

hahaha


when it became apparent that a husband, wife and kids couldn't stop a band of comanche from killing the dad, burning the house and cutting the noses and ears off the kids and mom, we sent in the cavalry. but NO, it was all the white man's fault. we went in there with guns a-blazing!

i mean they could have just made some sort of demonstration to get the people to leave, if they were that unwilling to share the land.

you know, draw a map with an arrow showing them to turn back or something. hehe

sorry, i'm feeling a bit melodramatic today. NOBODY should take offense at anything i say. you are thusly forewarned.

Ein Deutscher']If not for the glorious Americans who slaughtered the Indians, the world would probably be speaking Indianese now and we'd all be red-skins :D
We owe them eternal gratitude for that. Those Sitting Bull and Geronimo characters were realy awfull.

we went in there with guns a-blazing!
Excactly.

We owe them eternal gratitude for that. Those Sitting Bull and Geronimo characters were realy awfull.

well... Geronimo contributed to the language by giving us something to yell out when in the middle of executing a dive (in a pool).

...and our involvement in the Cold War with the USSR had nothing to do with their inability to stop the wall crumbling.

I see...
A side-effect of the cold war was that the Soviet Union was at the brink of economic collapse. The question is if it was caused by the radical militarization or the failure of communism as a system (or maybe both). In any event, the reunification would have taken place, since the division of Germany was illegal in the first place. If the SU would have wanted to keep the GDR, which hadmuch of its industry dismantled and shipped to the SU, I'm sure they could have done it. They had a lot of soldiers here at the time. However the system was in the process of failing during the 40 years the artificial country GDR existed and was sped up by the military spending that the SU had to do to keep up with the US. In that, the US helped indirectly, however the active overthrow of the system was done by the citizens and the politicians at the time, not by the cold war.

Excactly.

cripes, did you miss the whole first part of that.

FIRST our settlers were killed and/or tortured, and THEN we sent in the cavalry.

get it straight mein herr! (is that how ya say it? hehe)

Oh yeah. I'm witless. And the East-German majority was glad to have GI's there to protect them from the communist dictator in the West. What was his name again? Oh yeah. Adolf Hitler.
We had no American GIs in East Germany (GDR). We had a lot of Russians, but no Americans.

Ein Deutscher']If not for the glorious Americans who slaughtered the Indians, the world would probably be speaking Indianese now and we'd all be red-skins :DOf course, the United States is the only country in the world that has done anything in it's history to be ashamed of...

[/sarcasm]

...just go ahead and cast that first stone...if...

Von, if you knew some US history, (or more precisely, a history of the Americas), you would know that most of the native people on this side of the world had been exterminated not by English settlers, or even by Americans, but by measles, typhoid, and smallpox long before the first English ever set foot on this side of the world.

Courtesy of the Spanish.

There are numerous accounts of English arriving on this shore (especially from Virginia up to New England) to find empty villages with white bones bleaching in the sun - people struck down in such numbers and with such rapidity by disease that there were none left to bury the dead.

Although the treatment of native Americans by later Americans cannot be justified, it's a fact that millions had died before the wave of English colonization arrived.

Ein Deutscher']A side-effect of the cold war was that the Soviet Union was at the brink of economic collapse. The question is if it was caused by the radical militarization or the failure of communism as a system (or maybe both). In any event, the reunification would have taken place, since the division of Germany was illegal in the first place. If the SU would have wanted to keep the GDR, which hadmuch of its industry dismantled and shipped to the SU, I'm sure they could have done it. They had a lot of soldiers here at the time. However the system was in the process of failing during the 40 years the artificial country GDR existed and was sped up by the military spending that the SU had to do to keep up with the US. In that, the US helped indirectly, however the active overthrow of the system was done by the citizens and the politicians at the time, not by the cold war.

at any rate, i'm glad that it happened (it: fall of soviet union, reunification of Germany, opening of the East to democracy/free markets, and freedom of movement between East and West and within Berlin)

get it straight mein herr! (is that how ya say it? hehe)
I agree. You should get it straight. Who invaded whom's land? Hmm?

Von, if you knew some US history, (or more precisely, a history of the Americas), you would know that most of the native people on this side of the world had been exterminated not by English settlers, or even by Americans, but by measles, typhoid, and smallpox long before the first English ever set foot on this side of the world.

Courtesy of the Spanish.

I know that. But I wasn´t talking about the indians in the Spanish colonies was I?

Oh yeah. I'm witless. And the East-German majority was glad to have GI's there to protect them from the communist dictator in the West. What was his name again? Oh yeah. Adolf Hitler.Have to admit, I typed "East" when I meant to type "West".

And, yeah, you are witless.

I know that. But I wasn´t talking about the indians in the Spanish colonies was I?

I'm talking about the North Americans who died. The diseases (and the use of the horse) went up from the Spanish areas to cover all of North America in a wave of death - long before any English got here.

You would be surprised to know how few native Americans were left when the first English colonists arrived.

I'm talking about the North Americans who died. The diseases (and the use of the horse) went up from the Spanish areas to cover all of North America in a wave of death - long before any English got here.

You would be surprised to know how few native Americans were left when the first English colonists arrived.
Yeah. Let's blame the Spaniards for stuff like Wounded Knee as well.

Yeah. Let's blame the Spaniards for stuff like Wounded Knee as well.

I'm not justifying the abhorrent behavior - but in terms of sheer numbers, 90 percent of the natives had perished - some millions of people - before anyone else got there.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have been such an easy thing to do.

I'm not justifying the abhorrent behavior - but in terms of sheer numbers, 90 percent of the natives had perished - some millions of people - before anyone else got there.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have been such an easy thing to do.
And you think the superior firepower had nothing to do with it? Cortez had only a few hundred men and still fought of thousands of Aztec's. Pizarro conquered the Inca's with a handfull of men. So let's not blame it all on just diseases.

And you think the superior firepower had nothing to do with it? Cortez had only a few hundred men and still fought of thousands of Aztec's. Pizarro conquered the Inca's with a handfull of men. So let's not blame it all on just diseases.

Ahem. By the time of Little Big Horn, natives were using repeating lever action rifles - while the US Army was using single shot rifles. So they were much better armed than US troops. And a bow and arrow is a better weapon than a muzzleloading rifle - something both natives and settlers were well aware of. Had there not been so few natives when the English arrived, I think it unlikely that the colonies would have been built up as fast as they were.

At no time did the natives ever field a fighting force as large as the one at Little Big Horn (thousands of men). Most of the "Indian fighting" was very small groups of men.

Cortez and Pizarro were also aided by disease - and cannons - which had more of a psychological effect than a real combat effect.

In considering what was done to the Native Americans, a lot of it was done, and the precedents set, by European Colonists long before there was a United States. Disease is estimated to have eliminated up to 90 percent of the Native American population. Treaties were made, and broken. Land stolen, and people killed. And the European Colonial powers used the Native Americans against each others colonies/colonists. That got us off on a fine start.

And, then the United States proceeded to finish off the mess. And it was a horrible thing.

This, of course, is the only horrible thing that any nation on the planet has ever done. Every other nation has no history of which to be ashamed.

There have been no religious wars. There has been no wars of genocide. There have been...well, I think I can stop the sarcasm here.

Your initial question was about the cost to Germany in Dollars/Euros of the US Forces stationed there. The answer is that there is no such cost - the US pays Germany for the land and buildings it leases. The US does the same in every other place that Americans are stationed. Including Afghanistan and Iraq. That is fact.

I am NOT in favor of the Iraq war. I've argued against it in various other threads here (under this nation name, and others). But the truth is the truth, whatever other facts and truths surround it.

---------------------------------

edit: Cortez, Pizzaro, etc, had another advantage - the horse. Just imagine yourself as a common footsoldier of Montezma - there was no other kind - who had never seen anything like a horse before. And then these people clad in iron with guns on huge horses that trample people underfoot attack you. Arrows bouncing off the metal, your companions dying all around you from gunshots - which you don't understand because you've never seen anything like that before, or being trampled by the huge beasts the enemy controls and rides. A bit frightening. Enough to make you think maybe the gods were on the other side. Add that to the new diseases breaking out and killing huge numbers of your friends and family.

Of course, once the Native Americans had some time to learn about the horse...well, George Armstrong Custer found out what they learned about the horse.

I am really confused, I am watching our two German friends attack United States actions that were over a hundred years ago now.

Lets go back 60 or so years and look at the German government and their actions.

Dont judge American history before you spend a little time looking in the mirror.

Feel free to judge our current actions. But your history is not so pretty either.

Your initial question was about the cost to Germany in Dollars/Euros of the US Forces stationed there. The answer is that there is no such cost - the US pays Germany for the land and buildings it leases. The US does the same in every other place that Americans are stationed. Including Afghanistan and Iraq. That is fact.
You must have missed the link I posted a few pages back then. $1,2 billion in 2000.

I agree. You should get it straight. Who invaded whom's land? Hmm?

VW
yah, our settlers "invaded" but they didn't warrant getting their ears and noses cut off or, worse (maybe worse...), getting killed.

the whole thing could have been handled better on both sides.

VW
yah, our settlers "invaded"
You mean the indians were happy to have squatters on their lands?
but they didn't warrant getting their ears and noses cut off or, worse (maybe worse...), getting killed.
Occupational risk.

the whole thing could have been handled better on both sides.
Probably.

I am really confused, I am watching our two German friends attack United States actions that were over a hundred years ago now.

Lets go back 60 or so years and look at the German government and their actions.

Dont judge American history before you spend a little time looking in the mirror.

Feel free to judge our current actions. But your history is not so pretty either.
We're used to having the Nazi past thrown at us, thus why I brought up the Indians earlier. Strike first to eliminate the element of surprise - before an American points out just how horrible all Germans are because the Nazis did so bad stuff that today, we still have no right to voice our opinion... :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']We're used to having the Nazi past thrown at us, thus why I brought up the Indians earlier. Strike first to eliminate the element of surprise - before an American points out just how horrible all Germans are because the Nazis did so bad stuff that today, we still have no right to voice our opinion... :rolleyes:

The only people in the world who can talk are the Swiss, who as we know win every war.

Okay – so I went back and found your link on the 2nd page of this thread. Perhaps you should have read it. It has to do with, and only with, POST 9/11. This is a quote from your source.

“Since September 11, German federal and local governments have allocated considerable resources to enhance force protection for U.S. military personnel and dependents. Bundeswehr troops have been deployed to protect U.S. military facilities and additional support provided by local police. Germany contributed over $1.2 billion in 2000 to offset the costs of maintaining U.S. military forces on its soil, representing about 21 percent of U.S. non-personnel stationing costs in Germany. Almost all cost sharing was in the form of indirect contributions (i.e., waived taxes, rents and other forgone revenues).”

Note the last sentence. It is not talking about the German government laying out $1.2 billion. It clearly says that MOST (not all - but most) of that was in the form waiving the collection of taxes, rents, and other revenues that would otherwise have been paid by the US to the German government(s).

Done in the interest of assisting the US forces stationed in Germany in beefing up their security.

lol

Whispering Legs
I became convinced last night that my first gun (should i ever get one.. hehe) will be the Colt 1991A1 .45ACP in blue (ie, the Colt's standard .45).

would this be a decent choice? if this sucks, what's a good colt model in .45ACP, standard size?

lol

Whispering Legs
I became convinced last night that my first gun (should i ever get one.. hehe) will be the Colt 1991A1 .45ACP in blue (ie, the Colt's standard .45).

would this be a decent choice? if this sucks, what's a good colt model in .45ACP, standard size?

I would buy something from Springfield Armory before I bought a Colt.

Okay – so I went back and found your link on the 2nd page of this thread. Perhaps you should have read it. It has to do with, and only with, POST 9/11. This is a quote from your source.

“Since September 11, German federal and local governments have allocated considerable resources to enhance force protection for U.S. military personnel and dependents. Bundeswehr troops have been deployed to protect U.S. military facilities and additional support provided by local police. Germany contributed over $1.2 billion in 2000 to offset the costs of maintaining U.S. military forces on its soil, representing about 21 percent of U.S. non-personnel stationing costs in Germany. Almost all cost sharing was in the form of indirect contributions (i.e., waived taxes, rents and other forgone revenues).”

Note the last sentence. It is not talking about the German government laying out $1.2 billion. It clearly says that MOST (not all - but most) of that was in the form waiving the collection of taxes, rents, and other revenues that would otherwise have been paid by the US to the German government(s).

Done in the interest of assisting the US forces stationed in Germany in beefing up their security.
Yeah. You should read it. Since when is 2000 post 9-11? Hmm?
Or are you suggesting they had advanced knowledge of what was going to happen?

I would buy something from Springfield Armory before I bought a Colt.

the thing that's drawing me to the Colt is that it's the original... they came out with the .45ACP.

the thing that's drawing me to the Colt is that it's the original... they came out with the .45ACP.

It's not a valid reason. The Springfield Armory is just as much 1911 as the Colt, and it's of higher quality for less money.

Yeah. You should read it. Since when is 2000 post 9-11? Hmm?
Or are you suggesting they had advanced knowledge of what was going to happen?
Just read it, pal. It's your source, not mine. I just pasted a quote up there, and commented on it.

The point is that it is NOT about $1.2 billion being paid out by the German government(s). It's about most of $1.2 billion that would have been paid TO the German government(s) by the US government that was forgiven - that is, not collected.

Of course, it's pointless to continue to discuss this with you, as you have already made up your mind, and while your virtual "mouth" is going, your virtual "ears" don't seem to work.

Ein Deutscher']We're used to having the Nazi past thrown at us, thus why I brought up the Indians earlier. Strike first to eliminate the element of surprise - before an American points out just how horrible all Germans are because the Nazis did so bad stuff that today, we still have no right to voice our opinion... :rolleyes:

I do not judge current Germans on the actions of the Nazi government, Nor does anyone I no do so. (I do have a few relatives that will not buy German products because of their memories of that time)

FYI, I did support the actions in Iraq based on the intelligence showing WMD. I am still pissed at our president for playing the reason for war game(WMD then He is is a really bad guy, then he supports Terorists). BUT... We cannot pull out till the area is stable. If we did before the area is stabilized, the chaos that would ensue would be bad for everyone.

In regards to removing our troops from Germany;

You do realize that entire small towns will become ghost towns when the base next to them closes down?

I was stationed in Baumholder and in the Fulda Gap. Those towns there would collapse if not for the american soldiers spending their money in town.

You may not like that americans are staioned in Germany, but they have contributed to strengthening your economy.

Please feel free to voice your opinion, but also, as I tell my daughter, turn on your listening ears. Just because it is american saying something, does not make it meaningless.

Just read it, pal. It's your source, not mine. I just pasted a quote up there, and commented on it.
I wasn't the one claiming that the "allied" contributions to offset the costs of the bases in 2000 was only done after the events of 911 2001.

The point is that it is NOT about $1.2 billion being paid out by the German government(s). It's about most of $1.2 billion that would have been paid TO the German government(s) by the US government that was forgiven - that is, not collected.
Exactly. $1.2 billion that were not collected. So Germany has to pay for it's occupiers to continue to be occupied. And you don't understand I have a problem with that?

It's not a valid reason. The Springfield Armory is just as much 1911 as the Colt, and it's of higher quality for less money.

cool. thanks!

I wasn't the one claiming that the "allied" contributions to offset the costs of the bases in 2000 was only done after the events of 911 2001.


Exactly. $1.2 billion that were not collected.Again - I quoted your source, and discussed what it says. If it's wrong, well - it's your source.

The "forgiven" amounts...wouldn't have been there to "forgive" if the US presence wasn't there in the first place. And there were billions that WERE paid. Without looking back, I think YOUR source indicates that the $1.2 billion that was forgiven was around 20% of the total cost of stationing Americans in Germany. That would mean that roughly $4.8 billion WAS paid by the US to the German government(s).

And that's the point.

You're very good at ignoring what you don't want to see, regardless of the fact that it represents the BIG picture, in favor of what you do want to see, even though it's a small part of the big picture.

Again - I quoted your source, and discussed what it says. If it's wrong, well - it's your source.
Yes. You said it was all post 911.

The "forgiven" amounts...wouldn't have been there to "forgive" if the US presence wasn't there in the first place.
And thats the point.


And there were billions that WERE paid. Without looking back, I think YOUR source indicates that the $1.2 billion that was forgiven was around 20% of the total cost of stationing Americans in Germany. That would mean that roughly $4.8 billion WAS paid by the US to the German government(s).
The money to maintain the bases doesn't go to the German government.

It's not a valid reason. The Springfield Armory is just as much 1911 as the Colt, and it's of higher quality for less money.

okay, i'd go for the Mil-Spec Parkerized 1911A1 for $640 MSRP. it's almost identical to the Colt (in looks at least).

You do realize that entire small towns will become ghost towns when the base next to them closes down?

You mean we should be sorry for towns which never had a chance to exist where they used to be? Wrong! There is no point in keeping them there or subsidizing them. If people can´t make a living there they´ll have to move elsewhere - JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Tough choice.


You may not like that americans are staioned in Germany, but they have contributed to strengthening your economy.


That´s a point you hear SOOOOO often and it is so damn wrong. Actually the "contribution" as you call it to Germany´s economic strength is negligible. You don´t really think that 5 bucks 50 cents GI Joe spends here and there made Germany the third most powerful economy in the world?

That´s a point you hear SOOOOO often and it is so damn wrong. Actually the "contribution" as you call it to Germany´s economic strength is negligible. You don´t really think that 5 bucks 50 cents GI Joe spends here and there made Germany the third most powerful economy in the world?

It probably made a huge difference in the 1950s.

Oh yeah. Here we go again. The infamouse: You owe us!!! argument. Wanna throw a: We saved France!!! in as well?

sure, we saved France from Germany.... twice.... (with the assistance of the French and British and Commonwealth nations) from... GERMANY oddly enough.

An honest look sans ideology would certainly acknowledge that without US intervention in World War I the Germans would have probably won a narrow victory (US escorts in the War at Sea, US troops to provide the needed manpower edge for the Allied offensives in late 1918 and most importantly the needed morale edge to keep the Allies from collapsing during the Lunderdorf Offensives)

In World War II is there really in question that the Western Allies defeated Germany due to American assistance, and that nearly 3/4s of all motor vehicles (not tanks, trucks) were American made and supplied, without which the Soviets couldn't have launched their offensives either. Not counting all of the other decisive advantages America supplied to the British Empire and the Soviet Union that made victory possible over one of the most evil regimes the world has ever known?

Is there any question that without the Marshal Plan, and US military strength, Western Europe (including West Germany) would certainly have fallen to the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s, possibly by subversion and failing that almost certainly by military conquest?

Did the Cold War not end peacefully because the US and Soviet Union were locked in stalemate, allowing the Germans, French etc to develop their economies to the point that they were clearly superior places to live over the Soviet style economies in the Warsaw Pact nations including East Germany.

Or does your narrow minded idealogy and xenophobia and anti Americanism preclude you from looking at history objectively?

sure, we saved France from Germany.... twice.... (with the assistance of the French and British and Commonwealth nations) from... GERMANY oddly enough.

An honest look sans ideology would certainly acknowledge that without US intervention in World War I the Germans would have probably won a narrow victory (US escorts in the War at Sea, US troops to provide the needed manpower edge for the Allied offensives in late 1918 and most importantly the needed morale edge to keep the Allies from collapsing during the Lunderdorf Offensives)

In World War II is there really in question that the Western Allies defeated Germany due to American assistance, and that nearly 3/4s of all motor vehicles (not tanks, trucks) were American made and supplied, without which the Soviets couldn't have launched their offensives either. Not counting all of the other decisive advantages America supplied to the British Empire and the Soviet Union that made victory possible over one of the most evil regimes the world has ever known?

Is there any question that without the Marshal Plan, and US military strength, Western Europe (including West Germany) would certainly have fallen to the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s, possibly by subversion and failing that almost certainly by military conquest?

Did the Cold War not end peacefully because the US and Soviet Union were locked in stalemate, allowing the Germans, French etc to develop their economies to the point that they were clearly superior places to live over the Soviet style economies in the Warsaw Pact nations including East Germany.

Or does your narrow minded idealogy and xenophobia and anti Americanism preclude you from looking at history objectively?
If not glorifying the US and their hostile mercenaries occupying large parts of Europe makes me narrow minded. Then I am proud to be narrow minded.

Yeah. Let's blame the Spaniards for stuff like Wounded Knee as well.

in the scheme of things the casualties at Wounded Knee wouldn't even add up to the casualties of Lidice, Czechslovakia (wiped out on Hitlers order after the assassination of Heydrich)

The US government never actually had a consistant policy on Indians beyond removal (west of the Mississippi prior to the Civil War) and then placing them on reservations after the Civil War. It was never the stated policy of the US Government to exterminate any tribe or murder a specific individual. Unlike the Wanasee Protocol of 1942 in Germany which specificallly ordered the Final Solution.

Although the US government in the 19th Century was frequently incompetent and corrupt, and the settlers frequently slaughtered Indians wholesale, and occasional excesses by the US Army are frequently noteworthy (and harshly judged even then), there was no policy of genocide at any time.

So really there is no comparision between Nazi Genocide and the Conquest of North America by Europeans.

Several recent anthropology books pretty much conclusively prove that the pre Colombian Native American population of the Western Hemisphere numbered 80 - 100 million, and by 1600 (well predating the English settlement) had fallen to around 20 million on both continents and continued to plummet until the 20th Century to around 5 - 10 million (the Mestizo population in Latin America making accurate analysis more difficult but if you factor them in add another 20 million).

Nearly all were exterminated by Small Pox, Measles, Mumps, and a host of other diseases brought over by Europeans in the first century of contact, and those diseases continued to kill Native Americans by the millions until the development of modern medicine in the middle 20th Century.

Similar consequences and disasters hit the Polynesians in the Pacific as well.

If not glorifying the US and their hostile mercenaries occupying large parts of Europe makes me narrow minded. Then I am proud to be narrow minded.

so thats a yes then? Then of course you realize that every time you post your usual nonsense, rational debate will continue to show that you are exactly what you say?

so thats a yes then? Then of course you realize that every time you post your usual nonsense, rational debate will continue to show that you are exactly what you say?
If believing that makes you feel better.

Von Witzleben, would you consider yourself Anti-American?

Von Witzleben, would you consider yourself Anti-American?
:D Take a guess.

I have made a guess, I just wanted to hear it from you.

So. Now that thats out of the way. Why did you ask?

For awhile now, I have been lookign for a self described "Anti-American" to compare to, for example, an "Anti-War" or an "Anti-Bush". I was wondering if I had found a sudible benchmark.

And, a little idle curiosity. :)

Well I not much for American foreign policy but maybee USA could keep their base outside Reykavik. Because from my swedish understanding one of the few fun things with Iceland is the partylife in Reykavik and I guess the american soldiers have a big part keeping it alive.

Well I not much for American foreign policy but maybee USA could keep their base outside Reykavik. Because from my swedish understanding one of the few fun things with Iceland is the partylife in Reykavik and I guess the american soldiers have a big part keeping it alive.

Naaah...You don't see them much...They don't have any part in keeping it alive. They hang around the town where their base is, Keflavík.

For awhile now, I have been lookign for a self described "Anti-American" to compare to, for example, an "Anti-War" or an "Anti-Bush". I was wondering if I had found a sudible benchmark.

And, a little idle curiosity. :)
Well. I would say search no further.

cripes, did you miss the whole first part of that.

FIRST our settlers were killed and/or tortured, and THEN we sent in the cavalry.
Well, ummm, no.
That's not quite right.
Once the white 'settlers' (most of whom had just landed from someplace I won't mention, but who's initials are EUROPE) crossed the Cumberland Escarpment into what is now western Tennessee, and began taking lands that treaties had recognised as rightfully belonging to the Cherokee, the Cherokee did what anyone would do.
They defended their homes and lands.
The vast majority of these settlers were Irish or German.
So, Von Klueless, you and I have no moral leg to stand on in this regard.
I suggest that neither of us try to use this 'foolish hole card', as you are clearly German, and I am of Irish decent.

The vast majority of these settlers were Irish or German.
So, Von Klueless, you and I have no moral leg to stand on in this regard.
I suggest that neither of us try to use this 'foolish hole card', as you are clearly German, and I am of Irish decent.
Clueless is written with a c. And once they landed they stopped beeing German, Irish, Swedish, English or whatever. And where did you figure I was looking for somekind of moral leg?

Clueless is written with a c. And once they landed they stopped beeing German, Irish, Swedish, English or whatever. And where did you figure I was looking for somekind of moral leg?

Wait... so, if they weren't Germans or Irishmen or English once they landed, does that mean that the Americans aren't Americans once they are stationed in Germany? Do they become Germans? Is your military... occupying... itself?

Wait... so, if they weren't Germans or Irishmen or English once they landed, does that mean that the Americans aren't Americans once they are stationed in Germany? Do they become Germans? Is your military... occupying... itself?
No of course not. The Americans are the occupation forces stationed on foreign soil.

No of course not. The Americans are the occupation forces stationed on foreign soil.

would you mind clarifying why though the British, French, Dutch, and Canadian (the Belgians as well but I think they pulled out already) troops on German soil AREN"T Occupation troops according to your standards? They are also there under NATO force agreements, amd also occupied (the French and British) Germany postwar

would you mind clarifying why though the British, French, Dutch, and Canadian (the Belgians as well but I think they pulled out already) troops on German soil AREN"T Occupation troops according to your standards? They are also there under NATO force agreements, amd also occupied (the French and British) Germany postwar
Because they are friends and allies.

Because they are friends and allies.
Yes, the residents of Hamburg and Dresden hold an annual "Bomber Harris of the UK" day in honor of the time that their favorite ally burned hundreds of thousands of people to death and burned their cities to the ground.

No of course not. The Americans are the occupation forces stationed on foreign soil.


You have to get used tho the fact that we have to keep an eye on you from now on. Aside from that, our bases there make you a little safer than you'd be otherwise. Its ok to be frustrated.

You have to get used tho the fact that we have to keep an eye on you from now on. Aside from that, our bases there make you a little safer than you'd be otherwise. Its ok to be frustrated.

Maybe he should complain to the French. After all, they asked us to come save France from Germany a couple of times. Maybe if France could handle a little squabble with Germany on its own, the UK, US, and Russia wouldn't have to come over to Germany anymore.

Maybe he should complain to the French. After all, they asked us to come save France from Germany a couple of times. Maybe if France could handle a little squabble with Germany on its own, the UK, US, and Russia wouldn't have to come over to Germany anymore.


I think France actually liked having Germany as a guest. They certainly made them comfortable.

Because they are friends and allies.

as is the United States under several agreements, common interests and form of government.

but you obviously refuse to believe that. Other than idealogy, what possible objection do you have that is reasonable? Same force agreements, same reason for being there as the European nations that are present (plus the Canadians), same Cold War history, same World War 2 history.

In short, there is no logical reason for your objection based on your own statements.

Did a US M1A3 run over your flower bed? What is your objection?

If you don't have a logical one, than you are simply a bigot and why should any of us be impressed with your arguements?

as is the United States under several agreements, common interests and form of government.

but you obviously refuse to believe that. Other than idealogy, what possible objection do you have that is reasonable? Same force agreements, same reason for being there as the European nations that are present (plus the Canadians), same Cold War history, same World War 2 history.
The other Europeans and the Canadians are all welcome. They are friends. It's only natural that friends are welcome. The Americans on the other hand are enemies. Who's goal is it to enslave the world and destroy their cultures by Americanisation. Which starts with stationing their soldiers on foreign soil.
Both the republicans and democrats have their own version of PNAC. In which they state that their goal is to transform the world to suit their needs.
I have no desire to serve your needs. I would never lift one finger for the US.
NATO is like the US's version of the foreign legion. Why should our soldiers die, mostly at the hands of the Americans, for your safety?

If you don't have a logical one, than you are simply a bigot and why should any of us be impressed with your arguements?
Call me what you like. I never asked you to be impressed by my views.

The other Europeans and the Canadians are all welcome. They are friends. It's only natural that friends are welcome. The Americans on the other hand are enemies. Who's goal is it to enslave the world and destroy their cultures by Americanisation. Which starts with stationing their soldiers on foreign soil.
Both the republicans and democrats have their own version of PNAC. In which they state that their goal is to transform the world to suit their needs.
I have no desire to serve your needs. I would never lift one finger for the US.
NATO is like the US's version of the foreign legion. Why should our soldiers die, mostly at the hands of the Americans, for your safety?

so exactly when was the last time a German was killed in action serving alongside American forces? I don't recall any such incidents since the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, have we all missed something?

The US doesn't have to work to enslave the world, if you don't like American culture, don't buy American products, watch American television or movies, use the internet much (mostly an American invention with some help from CERN), fly in an aircraft (American invention), use a phone (need I go on?)

you choose or not to partake of American culture, nobody forces you too. Your fellow Germans (and their parents and Grandparents) chose to remain in NATO, joined the UN, reaffirmed the status of force agreements, joined the European Community and then the EU, etc....just like your Great Grandparents chose to vote Hitler into power (or chose to remain after he was elected). Historians point out that Hitler was the most popular German leader of the 20th century in Germany... (ironic is it not?)

so American troops remaining in your country is just as much your fault as it is any other Germans.

so exactly when was the last time a German was killed in action serving alongside American forces? I don't recall any such incidents since the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, have we all missed something?
I wasn't just talking about Germany. I'm sure your aware that more British soldiers for example were slain by the Americans then by the Taliban or Iraqi's.

The US doesn't have to work to enslave the world, if you don't like American culture, don't buy American products, watch American television or movies, use the internet much (mostly an American invention with some help from CERN), fly in an aircraft (American invention), use a phone (need I go on?)

you choose or not to partake of American culture, nobody forces you too.
Unfortunatly it's not just a matter of choice anymore these days.

Your fellow Germans (and their parents and Grandparents) chose to remain in NATO, joined the UN, reaffirmed the status of force agreements,
I wasn't aware that the US puppets in the government asked anyone about that.

joined the European Community and then the EU, etc....just like your Great Grandparents chose to vote Hitler into power (or chose to remain after he was elected). Historians point out that Hitler was the most popular German leader of the 20th century in Germany... (ironic is it not?)
If you see what kind of representatives we have these days it's not realy that suprising. :D

so American troops remaining in your country is just as much your fault as it is any other Germans.
Again. Noone asked me or the rest of the Germans if they want to have US troops occupying their soil.

I wasn't just talking about Germany. I'm sure your aware that more British soldiers for example were slain by the Americans then by the Taliban or Iraqi's..

oddly enough, I thought you were a German.... although Britian is in the EU and NATO, it certainly isn't Germany, and you have been continually referring to "our" soldiers... which clearly implies that you mean German soldiers.

I am sure the British can chose to participate or not in Iraq all on their own.. they have elections too after all.



Again. Noone asked me or the rest of the Germans if they want to have US troops occupying their soil.

Germany is a democratic nation, with frequent elections, and a variety of political parties.. because the majority of Germans don't seem to have your views you seem to view them as Puppets of the American Empire.

thats actually pretty damned funny when you think about it. You are saying you are smarter than most other Germans and clearly know what's best.

Which is why Germany is a democracy, as the last time Germany let someone make all their decisions for them they got involved in two world wars...

perhaps they are right and you are wrong? Or perhaps they take a longer view? Or even, just possibly, they aren't blinded by outmoded ideology and aren't convinced of German moral superiority, as that moral superiority is clearly not convincing in the least?

No of course not. The Americans are the occupation forces stationed on foreign soil.

Umm... the Americas are foreign soil to the Germans, Irish and Brits... so you just contradicted yourself.

Again. Noone asked me or the rest of the Germans if they want to have US troops occupying their soil.

Hmm... you seem to do a lot of talking on behalf of Germany.... Dictatorship in progress?

They didn't ask YOU.... So? They didn't ask me, either. You think I want to be stationed in another government? You don't seem to show your government of being a prosperous, peaceful nation... are you sure you have ANY allies, or just hidden enemies? What makes YOU think you Deserve to chose what nation "occupies" your country? What contributions have you made? Show yourself as an upstanding citizen and I Might consider your views more valid and feasible.

Yes, the residents of Hamburg and Dresden hold an annual "Bomber Harris of the UK" day in honor of the time that their favorite ally burned hundreds of thousands of people to death and burned their cities to the ground.
I think we'll eventually get there. Seeing how the amount of sucking up and curtseying before former enemies/occupators by our political class increases, this would not surprise me. We already have May 8th the "Liberation Day", which will be thrown into our faces once again - especially since it's the 60th anniversary of the grand victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany. The world would be incomplete without the German media and politicians topping each other with thankfulness and vassal-behaviour towards the Americans, British, Russians and French.

Ein Deutscher']I think we'll eventually get there. Seeing how the amount of sucking up and curtseying before former enemies/occupators by our political class increases, this would not surprise me. We already have May 8th the "Liberation Day", which will be thrown into our faces once again - especially since it's the 60th anniversary of the grand victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany. The world would be incomplete without the German media and politicians topping each other with thankfulness and vassal-behaviour towards the Americans, British, Russians and French.

Its like post WWI all over again. A faltering economy, tons of resentment towards the other countries. All you guys need now is a leader to stir up national pride and use some part of your population as a scapegoat.

Dont worry, the rest of the world will be more than happy to supply you with a beat down, yet again, once you guys decide to repeat history.

Ein Deutscher']I think we'll eventually get there. Seeing how the amount of sucking up and curtseying before former enemies/occupators by our political class increases, this would not surprise me. We already have May 8th the "Liberation Day", which will be thrown into our faces once again - especially since it's the 60th anniversary of the grand victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany. The world would be incomplete without the German media and politicians topping each other with thankfulness and vassal-behaviour towards the Americans, British, Russians and French.
Maybe you need to talk to Von. He thinks the British, Russians, and French are allies of Germany.

Its like post WWI all over again. A faltering economy, tons of resentment towards the other countries. All you guys need now is a leader to stir up national pride and use some part of your population as a scapegoat.

Dont worry, the rest of the world will be more than happy to supply you with a beat down, yet again, once you guys decide to repeat history.

a) faltering economy
b) tons of resentment towards other countries
c) national pride being stirred up by a leader
d) part of the population being used as a scapegoat

a) US economy has faltered, and has had a "recovery" that is plauged by reverses, poor indicator numbers, and few jobs. Now gas prices are rising.
b) What is the US's current standing on the international community? What is the US's current opinion of the UN, Europe, China, Mexico, the entire middle east, etc?
c) How many stickers, flags, pennants, collectables of all shapes and sizes were decorated with American flags, eagles, "Land of the Free" slogans and the like after 9/11? How big is that industry still?
d) What is the current political trend in the nation towards Gay rights? How about Christian religious persecution?

Your words seem strangely appropriate...but not for Germany. Funny how that works.

Ah. Found it. Now you can go on about...whatever you were talking about.
My god. The 1 billion Euro's isn't that far off as it seems. In 2000 $1.2 billion or 922,321,629.31 Euro's were sucked from the taxpayers pockets to support foreign occupation troops.

It was me who pointed out that the US spends 12 Billion and that Germany spends 1. That was a while ago.

Also, I've pointed out that with the six party treaty that unified Germany that the troops are there as GUESTS, not as an occupation force. Which was 1989.

a) faltering economy
b) tons of resentment towards other countries
c) national pride being stirred up by a leader
d) part of the population being used as a scapegoat

a) US economy has faltered, and has had a "recovery" that is plauged by reverses, poor indicator numbers, and few jobs. Now gas prices are rising.


You are mistaken about the US economy, but you can stay in your dream land if you like.


b) What is the US's current standing on the international community? What is the US's current opinion of the UN, Europe, China, Mexico, the entire middle east, etc?


Pleanty of countries still appreciate the US for what it is. A land of plenty of opportunity. If some people want to whine and protest, well, thats their choice. People are still voting with their feet and choosing to move here.


c) How many stickers, flags, pennants, collectables of all shapes and sizes were decorated with American flags, eagles, "Land of the Free" slogans and the like after 9/11? How big is that industry still?


There is a big differance between believing in your country and a leader stirring National pride to target the reat of the world. Unless you think targetting terrorists and their supporters as the "rest of the world"


d) What is the current political trend in the nation towards Gay rights? How about Christian religious persecution?


Dont be moronic. There is a big differance between not wanting to change the definition of marriage and claiming that gays are the root of all evil(as was done with jews in Nazi Germany). Once again, if you choose to be willfully silly, then that is your choice.


Your words seem strangely appropriate...but not for Germany. Funny how that works.

Only in a mind as twisted as yours.

Only a person who cannot deal with reality would compare the US unemployment rate and Germany's and state(with regard to the US) "Few Jobs"

you can stay in your dream land if you like.

Dont be moronic.
Once again, if you choose to be willfully silly, then that is your choice.

Only in a mind as twisted as yours.
Only a person who cannot deal with reality would compare the US unemployment rate and Germany's and state(with regard to the US) "Few Jobs"

Rather rude of you, don't you think? Are you upset because I twisted your tail a little? How defensive, how insecure, how delightfully childish. You squirmed in your chair and denounced and demeaned me for such a little joke

...I'll admit though, I knew you would; that's why I poked fun at you. Forgive me for using your weakness for my amusement. My apologies.

Your claims are simply wrong in some cases. But don't worry, I wouldn't dream of calling you out on them. Besides, you might get violent, with a temper like yours. I shudder to think of you foaming and destorying your keyboard in some desperate attempt to justify your opinions without the facts you would so desperately need.

Well...since I'm here, I'll point out one little problem with your thinking. The numbers for Germany's unemployment and the numbers for the US's unemployment...How are they reached? Do you know?

I would suggest that you study into that subject a bit. The way Germany calculates its unemployment is different from the US's; thus Germany's unemployment rate seems higher than our US rate. In actuality...well, I won't spoil your surprise. Have fun diving into the wonderful world of misleading statistics for political gain.

Well, I don't know about Germany, because i plan on being stationed in Japan, but here is the information on the Pacific Command bases.

US Pacific Command Facilities
U.S. bases in Japan and Korea remain the critical component of U.S. deterrent and rapid response strategy in Asia. U.S. military presence in the region also enables the United States to respond more rapidly and flexibly in other areas. The basic outlines of U.S. force presence in Japan and Korea will remain constant. Japanese peacetime host nation support (HNS) remains the most generous of any of America’s allies around the world, averaging about $5 billion each year. Despite its severe financial crisis, Korea provides substantial support for maintenance of U.S. troops, recognizing like Japan that HNS is a critical strategic factor in the alliance.

Both nations continue to modernize their forces and have procured substantial amounts of U.S. equipment, services and weapons systems to enhance interoperability and cooperation between alliance forces. In fact, the U.S. has more equipment in common with Japan than any other ally.

After the closure of US bases in the Philippines in 1992, the United States has benefited from a series of access agreements and other arrangements with Southeast Asian partners that have supported continued U.S. military engagement. These arrangements, including port calls, repair facilities, training ranges and logistics support, have become increasingly important to the US overseas presence. For example, Singapore announced in early 1998 that its Changi Naval Station, which became operational in the year 2000, would be available to U.S. naval combatants and include a pier which can accommodate American aircraft carriers. In January 1998, the United States and the Philippines negotiated a Visiting Forces Agreement that, when ratified, will permit routine combined exercises and training, and ship visits. Thailand remains an important refueling and transit point for possible operations to neighboring trouble spots, including the Arabian Gulf. Australia has long provided key access to facilities for U.S. unilateral and combined exercises.

Although the US overseas presence in Asia serves both regional and U.S. security interests, the impact on local communities in host countries can be great. The United States understands and appreciates the sacrifices of the citizens who live near training areas or bases, and who sometimes endure noise and other inconveniences. U.S. forces work to mitigate these effects and coordinate closely with officials at both the national and local levels, and local citizens groups to reach mutually satisfactory arrangements. In Japan, for instance, U.S. forces have relocated artillery training, and when possible, carrier landing practice to alleviate the inconvenience to local residents. The United States has also worked with Japan to establish quiet hours to minimize the impact of routine air operations on local communities. In both Japan and Korea, there has been a continuing effort to address environmental issues associated with its base presence. The United States has pledged to work closely with Japanese and Korean authorities to ensure U.S. military operations are carried out with due regard for the environment and public safety. The U.S. has also made progress to return base and training-related land, to alter operational procedures in host countries in an effort to respond to local concerns, and to be better neighbors.

By mid-2003 the Pentagon was planning a broad realignment of troops in Asia that may include moving Marines out of Japan and establishing a network of small bases in countries such as Australia, Singapore and Malaysia where the US has never had a substantial military presence. The 24,000 or so US troops based with their families elsewhere in Japan would remain where they were. But the Pentagon would increase the military equipment and weaponry stored and maintained at ports in Japan and elsewhere, allowing it to cut back the number of troops based in the region but leaving it able to deploy them rapidly to conflicts in the area.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pacom.htm

Rather rude of you, don't you think? Are you upset because I twisted your tail a little? How defensive, how insecure, how delightfully childish. You squirmed in your chair and denounced and demeaned me for such a little joke

...I'll admit though, I knew you would; that's why I poked fun at you. Forgive me for using your weakness for my amusement. My apologies.

Your claims are simply wrong in some cases. But don't worry, I wouldn't dream of calling you out on them. Besides, you might get violent, with a temper like yours. I shudder to think of you foaming and destorying your keyboard in some desperate attempt to justify your opinions without the facts you would so desperately need.

Well...since I'm here, I'll point out one little problem with your thinking. The numbers for Germany's unemployment and the numbers for the US's unemployment...How are they reached? Do you know?

I would suggest that you study into that subject a bit. The way Germany calculates its unemployment is different from the US's; thus Germany's unemployment rate seems higher than our US rate. In actuality...well, I won't spoil your surprise. Have fun diving into the wonderful world of misleading statistics for political gain.

And how arrogant, concieted and unnecessarily aggressive you are.... A double edged sword, and you just cut yourself.

oddly enough, I thought you were a German....
I am.
although Britian is in the EU and NATO, it certainly isn't Germany
I never said it is.
and you have been continually referring to "our" soldiers... which clearly implies that you mean German soldiers.
If you had payed some attention you would have noticed I also am a European nationalist. So with 'our soldiers' I refer to European soldiers in the broader sense. I would have mentioned it if I meant any specific nationality.

I am sure the British can chose to participate or not in Iraq all on their own.. they have elections too after all.
And you saw how willing the elected US puppet was to ignore the will of the people.





Germany is a democratic nation
Uum sure.

with frequent elections, and a variety of political parties.. because the majority of Germans don't seem to have your views you seem to view them as Puppets of the American Empire.
:D Those who are interested in politics, for a large part, do view them as such. As for variety....well...they are all pretty much the same actually. they have different approaches. But thats were the variety ends.

thats actually pretty damned funny when you think about it. You are saying you are smarter than most other Germans and clearly know what's best.
Point out were I claimed to be smarter then most Germans.

Which is why Germany is a democracy, as the last time Germany let someone make all their decisions for them they got involved in two world wars...
Clearly I'm smarter then you. If you make statements like this.

perhaps they are right and you are wrong? Or perhaps they take a longer view? Or even, just possibly, they aren't blinded by outmoded ideology and aren't convinced of German moral superiority, as that moral superiority is clearly not convincing in the least?
And maybe you don't know what your saying afterall. Whats all this talk about moral superiority?

hidden enemies?
Yes. The US.

And how arrogant, concieted and unnecessarily aggressive you are....

Now, now. I apologized didn't I? ...But yes, I continued to prod him afterwards, so I guess I wasn't being very nice. Still, I sometimes like to point out that even if I may agree with a person's conclusions, their methodology may be unsound.

My hope is that "Isanyonehome" will become a better informed person through my actions. Sometimes using anger as a motivational push will help someone more than a kind word.

Oh, and that thank you for the kind words. I pride myself in those virtues.

I find it humorous that a GERMAN is complaining about U.S. Occupation Forces.

I'm here living in territory that has been illegally occupied by the U.S. since its war of aggression against a peaceful neighbor that began 144 years ago.

But, The South Will Rise Again! ;)

In actuality, the U.S. has done a lot of bad things (like every nation), and continues to do some bad things.

However, I have been assured by friends living in Germany that the population there still manages to exceed that of the U.S. in brutality, and that the police in Germany are even now reminiscent of the S.S. in their persecution of minorities (whereas the U.S. police are not so organized in their persecution of minorities).

Both the U.S. AND Germany have a lot to be ashamed of - not for past misdeeds, but for what they are doing NOW to innocent people, with the full support of the electorate.



Baldur

However, I have been assured by friends living in Germany that the population there still manages to exceed that of the U.S. in brutality
This is extremely funny.:D
and that the police in Germany are even now reminiscent of the S.S. in their persecution of minorities.
:D As is this.

Yes. The US.

Um... how are they "invisible enemies" if -you- can clearly see them?

Or are you the only one who can see them?

If you had payed some attention you would have noticed I also am a European nationalist. So with 'our soldiers' I refer to European soldiers in the broader sense. I would have mentioned it if I meant any specific nationality.

Actually this is the first indication you have made that you are a European Nationalist...instead of a German one.

I will ignore you smug attitude, as its beneath notice

In this thread, like others you have started, you frequently drop arguements if they are challenged. In a traditional debate format that would mean you lose.

You instead take the more political (as in politician) approach of just hammering away at your message regardless of whether it has substantive merit or not. You basically stick to your idealogy (or cynicism) even when its not really warranted by an objective view of the subject you are on your soapbox about, even when history shows your mistaken, or simply taking a very slanted view of it.

In short, you argue, you don't debate.

Throughout this thread I have been gradually asking you leading questions to get you to spout sufficient nonsense as to discredit yourself to any reasonable or objective reader. Even though you will certainly deny it, and no doubt make another smug comment, the fact is your own words are your own worst enemy.

And you call Americans provincial (chuckle), you are no different than some of my fellow countrymen who espouse jingoistic foreign politicies and inconsistant domestic morality.

In other words, you are no different than what you preach against.

I would expect better of a nation named after one of the heroic figures (and practically the only survivor) of the bomb plots against Hitler in 1943 and 1944

snide remarks snipped


Well...since I'm here, I'll point out one little problem with your thinking. The numbers for Germany's unemployment and the numbers for the US's unemployment...How are they reached? Do you know?

I would suggest that you study into that subject a bit. The way Germany calculates its unemployment is different from the US's; thus Germany's unemployment rate seems higher than our US rate. In actuality...well, I won't spoil your surprise. Have fun diving into the wonderful world of misleading statistics for political gain.

Well, I had prepared myself to spend some time going over the differences between how the US and Germany record unemployment so I could answer this post. Then I realized that I dont really have to. All the information that is pertinent to the point is contained within each country's own statistics.

Compare Germany from the 1970s to now and you will see that their unemployment rate has gone from 2.5% to over 12% While the US has almost the opposite going to the low 5% currently. However these countries measure unemployment, even someone as arrogant as yourself should be able to understand the significance

edit unless of course you ego requires you to argue that Germany simultaneously made their numbers look worse while the US made theirs look better

Yes. The US.

An invisible enemy that plugs $12 Billion into your economy every year?

I should be so lucky! :rolleyes:

An invisible enemy that plugs $12 Billion into your economy every year?

I should be so lucky! :rolleyes:


Come on, the same guys that fund alqaeda (The Saudi) pour lots of money into your economy too.

But that is not the point. The point is: The US has bases in Europe. No matter how much money they bring, we don't want them. Its not a question of wealth, which i have come to conclude that is more important to the average American than to the Average European. It is a question of legitimacy. And since the US is seen as a rude, unilateral cowboy these days.. we suddently don't want you in our backyard.

Please leave. Your presence is not welcomed, we do not want the "defence" you provide to us.

Helll, you even win with it: Your men go home. We share the same goals here.

Now, lets all be gentlemen: You vote for a guy that wants to take your men out, we vote for a guy that wants to kick your men out :D

Its simple :)

And thats $1.2 that has to come out of the taxpayers pockets since it's not coming out of the pockets of the occupation forces.


Beeing the first battlefield between the Soviets and the Americans can have that effect.

I don't get it. The country's broke but Schröder prefers to give the poor less welfare rather than making the Americans pay for all of their expenses or asking them to leave. It ain't right. And why is nobody in Germany protesting that?!

Come on, the same guys that fund alqaeda (The Saudi) pour lots of money into your economy too.

But that is not the point. The point is: The US has bases in Europe. No matter how much money they bring, we don't want them. Its not a question of wealth, which i have come to conclude that is more important to the average American than to the Average European. It is a question of legitimacy. And since the US is seen as a rude, unilateral cowboy these days.. we suddently don't want you in our backyard.

Please leave. Your presence is not welcomed, we do not want the "defence" you provide to us.

Helll, you even win with it: Your men go home. We share the same goals here.

Now, lets all be gentlemen: You vote for a guy that wants to take your men out, we vote for a guy that wants to kick your men out :D

Its simple :)

Germany is a convienient base for US operations over there. Our men like it there. Plus-we still have to keep a close eye on you. Being seen as a "unilateral cowboy" doesnt much bother the US population. Some of us think we're better off being seen that way.
The point is, the US bases will likely remain til such time as it no longer suits the US.

Come on, the same guys that fund alqaeda (The Saudi) pour lots of money into your economy too.

If you can show me that the same Saudis that fund alqueda are giving the US $12billion a year, I'll buy that arguement.

But that is not the point. The point is: The US has bases in Europe. No matter how much money they bring, we don't want them.

Whom is we? Has there been a vote on this? As I understand it, the Bulgarians want US bases rather badly...

Its not a question of wealth, which i have come to conclude that is more important to the average American than to the Average European. It is a question of legitimacy. And since the US is seen as a rude, unilateral cowboy these days.. we suddently don't want you in our backyard.

Ah, so because the US is more to the political right, Euros suddenly want to undo an alliance that's been around for six decades? Sorry, I don't buy it as a general European idea.

Please leave. Your presence is not welcomed, we do not want the "defence" you provide to us.

Great... until the next time. :(

Helll, you even win with it: Your men go home. We share the same goals here.

I don't get that point at all. The guys are there to do a job. Further, most all deployments (barring Sarajevo), have been outside of Europe.

Now, lets all be gentlemen: You vote for a guy that wants to take your men out, we vote for a guy that wants to kick your men out :D

Its simple :)

It's tripe. :p

The German public has made it's wishes clear. They prefer Saddam to Bush. With their alliances drawn, we should leave, driving the final nail in the coffin of the into the punch drunk German economy. Why does America keep pouring resources into the rust bucket of Europe?

You Germans bitching about how evil America is, I wish you guys had a job and had a happy life. The sooner you shed the chains of socialism the sooner you'll find work.

About capitalism, I never got a job from a poor person.

I don't get it. The country's broke but Schröder prefers to give the poor less welfare rather than making the Americans pay for all of their expenses or asking them to leave. It ain't right. And why is nobody in Germany protesting that?!

I thought Germany was improving economically and that the reunification was going well?

As far as asking the US to leave goes, Germany could always ask to renegotiate the force agreements, the German voters could always elect a government that insists on it

but that hasn't happened, so that leads an objective observer to conclude that it isn't as big a deal to the average German as some of the posters on this thread would lead us to believe.

I thought Germany was improving economically and that the reunification was going well?

As far as asking the US to leave goes, Germany could always ask to renegotiate the force agreements, the German voters could always elect a government that insists on it

but that hasn't happened, so that leads an objective observer to conclude that it isn't as big a deal to the average German as some of the posters on this thread would lead us to believe.


Maybe it's not a big deal to the average Joe because they do not even know that their Tax Euros are poured into American bases on their soil. Hell, I only found out today!

Unfortunately the only kinds of governments I see opposing US presence (or the fact that the US doesn't pay for all of their expenses) would probably be some radical demagogue government which won't be elected any time soon. All the bigger parties are pussies who wouldn't dare ask such a thing of the U.S. (I was slightly pleasently surprized by our pussy in Chief when he declared opposition to the American invasion of Iraq).

The German economy has been going downhill since 1999 or 2000 now and in my opinion, the reunification went pretty badly. It all happened too fast. I think it was right that east Germans were allowed to travel into West Germany (and thus the entire EC) in 1989 and that the Wall came down. BUT the 2 German states should have continued existing separately and integration should have gone slowly, kinda like the EU eastern enlargement.

Well, I had prepared myself to spend some time going over the differences between how the US and Germany record unemployment so I could answer this post. Then I realized that I dont really have to. All the information that is pertinent to the point is contained within each country's own statistics.

Compare Germany from the 1970s to now and you will see that their unemployment rate has gone from 2.5% to over 12% While the US has almost the opposite going to the low 5% currently. However these countries measure unemployment, even someone as arrogant as yourself should be able to understand the significance

edit unless of course you ego requires you to argue that Germany simultaneously made their numbers look worse while the US made theirs look better

I am awaiting your response. I took my time, so its no big deal I guess waiting for yours. But given your level of condesencion, I would have thought you would have had a reply off the bat.

Its the weekend, I still havent looked up the disparity between German and Us unemployment accounting beyond the most glaring differances. You on the hand had this issue solved before this began. So I await your wisdom.

So explain to me, and anyone else bored enough to pay attention why you are arrogant enough to believe that US and German unemployment rates even begins to approach parity. Because if you even begin to give me the bullshit about how Germans count unfilled positions and completely discount the relationship between length of benefits and re employment rates, I am going to call you for the self righteous **** I already think you are.

We can go further into a whole slew of economic indicators(factoring in the Eastern European drag) about Germany's economy(this is more or less my line of work(not an economist though) if you wish to.

Forums are about education after all.

I am curious if you can justify both your obnoxious attitude and your legendary namesake. Somehow I doubt it though, he wouldn't have tipped his hand by letting others know who he was. I think you are just a poor fascimile.

Iceland is, however, a law unto itself here as it has no military of its own, and so the entire defense operation is in effect in the hands of the USA, am I right?

Basically when the US landed troops there to thwart German attempts in WWII. Iceland and Greenland are the first territories taken by the US in WWII.

I don't get it. The country's broke but Schröder prefers to give the poor less welfare rather than making the Americans pay for all of their expenses or asking them to leave.
He already said no to the Iraq war. So he could win the election.

It ain't right.
It sure ain't.
And why is nobody in Germany protesting that?!
Because most people don't even know this.

Basically when the US landed troops there to thwart German attempts in WWII. Iceland and Greenland are the first territories taken by the US in WWII.

at the time, both were owned by Denmark, which was occupied by the Germans in April 1940. The King of Denmark gave vocal support for Iceland's independence even when Denmark was under occupation, and Iceland gained its independence in 1943. Denmark still owns Greenland (as much as anyone can actually own a land that is 95% icecap)

at the time, both were owned by Denmark, which was occupied by the Germans in April 1940. The King of Denmark gave vocal support for Iceland's independence even when Denmark was under occupation, and Iceland gained its independence in 1943. Denmark still owns Greenland (as much as anyone can actually own a land that is 95% icecap)
Actually Greenland is pretty autonomous these days. The natives run it, quite successfully, I may add.

Actually Greenland is pretty autonomous these days. The natives run it, quite successfully, I may add.

true, but it is technically still Danish territory.. the USAF still has a couple of bases there, part of the North American Air Defense Warning System (the old DEW line essentially), and some refueling aircraft as well. The International Ice Patrol (US and Canadian and British and Danish ships) operate in the area as well.

-snip-

Interesting. You're all ready for a big fight, when I was just intent on refocusing your energies towards a more productive goal. How very interesting. You don't take advice well do you? Most people educate themselves, not force others to educate them in some strange blustering show of stubborness.

Despite myself, I'm curious, just why are you so eager to call me a ****? I merely mentioned possible similarities to your represenation of Germany to our own US. Is your hatred run so deep for that? Or is it the smattering of insults I tickled you with after you attacked me? Either way, I see no reason to continue this antagonism with you.

You've thrown down the gauntlet of education, and I daresay I refuse to pick it up. Follow my advice and learn, or do not, it matters little to me in the end. Look at how the US reaches its unemployment numbers and look at how Germany calculates their own. The reason for the disparity lies therin. If you don't wish to, then don't.

The conclusions you draw from that are up to you. I see no need to force you to see any "inner truths" about the US or Germany, I merely wish to point out that their methods of statistical inquiry are different. Your interpretations of that data is purely your own affair.

I now divorce myself of you, for you seem only to do battle, and not to pursue intelligent discourse. I am in no need of a "rival" or an "enemy" on this forum. You are, in my estimation, not interested in what I have to say for any other reason than denouncing it. I am, in turn, not interesting in you for any other reason than simple amusement, and the small amount of hope that you might prove to be a worthwhile discussion partner someday.

You may now crow and boast of your deep victory over my nation's namesake, an empty victory over a disinterested opponent. Or you can mature a little. Again, totally up to you.

Well since we are all talking about space based weapons as of late. I found a cool link on some new US weapons. I personally like the rods from gods weapon. I can think of a few uses for this one myself.www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03209/206344.stm)
And yet more proof that the US is the true enemy.

Geez, let the thread die already.

And yet more proof that the US is the true enemy.

I would think you would be all for this one Witzleben, the US wouldn't need bases overseas with a large space based arsenal, nor would it need nuclear weapons.

So we wouldn't need to be in Europe anymore... isn't that what you want after all?

I would think you would be all for this one Witzleben, the US wouldn't need bases overseas with a large space based arsenal, nor would it need nuclear weapons.

So we wouldn't need to be in Europe anymore... isn't that what you want after all?

He doesn't want a reminder that the US is more powerful than Germany, that's what he wants. The fact that we are stationed there is just a constant reminder of that.

I would think you would be all for this one Witzleben, the US wouldn't need bases overseas with a large space based arsenal, nor would it need nuclear weapons.

So we wouldn't need to be in Europe anymore... isn't that what you want after all?
Yes it is. But that doesn't mean I want the constant threat of space based weapons of a rogue nation hanging over my head.

He doesn't want a reminder that the US is more powerful than Germany, that's what he wants. The fact that we are stationed there is just a constant reminder of that.
No. But it is a constant reminder who the real enemy is.

I think the European Union has progressed far enough, what political, cultural and economical unity is concerned. But to ensure Europe's survival thruout the 21st century, there is one last remaining step: The true unification of the Armed forces. The main language of the European Armed Forces should be American english, but units which contain only troops of a single mother tongue should speak their own language. That way, military spending can be used more efficiently. Europe should also develop its equivalent of the American antiballistic missile defense, space based weapons, build more aircraft carriers and build strategic bombers.

The main language of the European Armed Forces should be American english .
No. No problems with English. But not "American" English.

I think the European Union has progressed far enough, what political, cultural and economical unity is concerned. But to ensure Europe's survival thruout the 21st century, there is one last remaining step: The true unification of the Armed forces. The main language of the European Armed Forces should be American english, but units which contain only troops of a single mother tongue should speak their own language. That way, military spending can be used more efficiently. Europe should also develop its equivalent of the American antiballistic missile defense, space based weapons, build more aircraft carriers and build strategic bombers.

I am guessing the Russians wouldn't be too excited about the Europeans (Germans especially) having strategic bombers.. just a guess

but they are essentially obsolete now in any case against well armed opponents

I am guessing the Russians wouldn't be too excited about the Europeans (Germans especially) having strategic bombers.. just a guess

but they are essentially obsolete now in any case against well armed opponents

The British have had strategic bombers for decades...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/300px-Vulcan.planview.640pix.jpg
British Vulcan, circa 1961

The British have had strategic bombers for decades...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/300px-Vulcan.planview.640pix.jpg
British Vulcan, circa 1961

true, the RAF (and the French Armee de Air) did... and the French still do.... but I still don't think the Soviets would be excited about the Germans having them, do you? By that as it may, as a first line weapon system the bomber is going away in any case. I suspect the B2 will be the last one built as a penetration weapon, and since you can buy a space shuttle for the price of one B2, its probably just as well.

By the way, the last flight of the last RAF heavy bomber occured during the Falklands War... all of the V series bombers are history (or scrap metal or museum pieces) now.

Europe should also develop its equivalent of the American antiballistic missile defense, space based weapons, build more aircraft carriers and build strategic bombers.

I could be mistaken, but didn't the US offer to share SDI research with the principal NATO members at one point?

Since nobody (even the US) has a creditable ABM shield, I wouldn't get your hopes up anytime soon. Besides, with the development of supersonic cruise missiles with stealth capability, the ICBMs will go away in any case. Those nations likely to develop them will have liquid fuel systems in the short run, which are hard to deal with (from an operational standpoint), and fairly readily targetted. (in other words, I don't think the US really needs SDI either, but thats another thread).

If Europe wants to waste its money though, all power to them. Maybe we will all go broke together.

true, the RAF (and the French Armee de Air) did... and the French still do.... but I still don't think the Soviets would be excited about the Germans having them, do you? By that as it may, as a first line weapon system the bomber is going away in any case. I suspect the B2 will be the last one built as a penetration weapon, and since you can buy a space shuttle for the price of one B2, its probably just as well.

By the way, the last flight of the last RAF heavy bomber occured during the Falklands War... all of the V series bombers are history (or scrap metal or museum pieces) now.

I'm actually not aware of any modern bombers in the French or Swedish Air Forces (I did a cursory search; if you know of any, let me know). I don't think any other Euro powers would have a bomber wing...

No, I doubt the Russians (no more Soviets!! At least, not until the counter-counter revolution...) would like Germany having a bombing wing, but OTOH, I suspect that Putin has to know that NATO isn't going to attack.
Simply, there is nothing to gain from anybody starting another major Euro war, unless maybe by a United Arabic Front, but those are 1:100.000 odds as best.

I'd say that the B2 is more useful than the Space Shuttle. Not only does it have a better safety record, it also does the job it was built for. The Space Cadillac doesn't (and I used to LOVE Nasa!).

Actually, I don't think bombers are going away anytime soon. The B1 has proven very useful as well; and (lets face it) bombers are more survivable and cheaper than ICBMs or subs. The B-52 is expected to be in service until 2040!. It started flying in 1955!

There is only 1 flying Vulcan left. :(

Jeez, i've heard this argument sooo many times now...

@US guys: Think about it, how would you feel if say, Russia, had a few dozen military bases scattered throughout the States? Would it not stick in your craw that your sovereignty was being impeded? Would you not feel like a second class nation?

@Europeans: Quit saying the U.S is the true enemy PLEASE! The U.S has done some good things for the world in the past few hundred years (true, it has also done some absolutley despicible and abhorrent things also- but i don't blame every U.S citizen- only their administrations.)

@ANYONE who says 'oh till next time you need to us sort out sort your problems...' and the like... no one asked you to butt in. you didn't do it out of your own conscience- it was politics and power games- you chose to. when the majority of people ask you to leave... LEAVE! thats democracy- something you aspire to hold dear to your heart.

bloody nationalism... root of all problems... :headbang:

I'm actually not aware of any modern bombers in the French or Swedish Air Forces (I did a cursory search; if you know of any, let me know). I don't think any other Euro powers would have a bomber wing...

No, I doubt the Russians (no more Soviets!! At least, not until the counter-counter revolution...) would like Germany having a bombing wing, but OTOH, I suspect that Putin has to know that NATO isn't going to attack.
Simply, there is nothing to gain from anybody starting another major Euro war, unless maybe by a United Arabic Front, but those are 1:100.000 odds as best.

I'd say that the B2 is more useful than the Space Shuttle. Not only does it have a better safety record, it also does the job it was built for. The Space Cadillac doesn't (and I used to LOVE Nasa!).

Actually, I don't think bombers are going away anytime soon. The B1 has proven very useful as well; and (lets face it) bombers are more survivable and cheaper than ICBMs or subs. The B-52 is expected to be in service until 2040!. It started flying in 1955!

There is only 1 flying Vulcan left. :(

I am pretty sure the French are using a version of the Mirage2000, but may still have the Mirage VB still in service

good point about the B2 safety record... although its newer and better technology and goes through less stress than a space mission... but god we need a better system.... maybe private industry will develop one soon. They already have a good start.

Chuckle, even Putin may not be that paranoid, but I think only the French would want to build a bomber at this point anyway. The Germans don't have nukes, and the British still have their subs (as do the French for that matter). Only the French still have extensive military / political interests outside of Europe (former French colonies in Africa and a substantial history of intervention in that region) and would be the only power likely to really have use for a conventional bomber. The British could possibly use one, but at this point as they have been out of the bomber business for over 20 years aren't likely to worry to much about them.

There are at least a couple of V series bombers still flying by the way, I saw a tanker version of the first V series (I want to say the Valiant) a number of years back at an Air Show. It was a former RCAF Tanker version.

No. No problems with English. But not "American" English.

Why not? Most innovative weapons systems and strategies are American. Why not adopt their language as a common one? Furthermore, most EU countries are also NATO countries. If I'm not mistaken, NATO's common language is American english, so it would be easier for most countries' troops.

Have u ever played Command&Conquer Red Alert? That game featured an All-European army with American accents :D

I am guessing the Russians wouldn't be too excited about the Europeans (Germans especially) having strategic bombers.. just a guess

but they are essentially obsolete now in any case against well armed opponents

Yeah, well our governments aren't too happy with human rights and democracy abuses in Russia but don't do anything about it either. And if they really start bitchin about a hypothetical new European bomber fleet, they could place the development under joint control: Combining Russian know-how of old bombers and European avionics & missiles/bombs perhaps?

I could be mistaken, but didn't the US offer to share SDI research with the principal NATO members at one point?

Since nobody (even the US) has a creditable ABM shield, I wouldn't get your hopes up anytime soon. Besides, with the development of supersonic cruise missiles with stealth capability, the ICBMs will go away in any case. Those nations likely to develop them will have liquid fuel systems in the short run, which are hard to deal with (from an operational standpoint), and fairly readily targetted. (in other words, I don't think the US really needs SDI either, but thats another thread).

If Europe wants to waste its money though, all power to them. Maybe we will all go broke together.

I'm not certain, but I thought that the United States offered NATO countries protection with the SDI, but no European involvement in the actual development or control of the system.

During the cold war, the Americans offered the West-German government joint-control of nuclear weapons based in the Federal Republic, but Germany declined.

Interesting. You're all ready for a big fight, when I was just intent on refocusing your energies towards a more productive goal. How very interesting. You don't take advice well do you? Most people educate themselves, not force others to educate them in some strange blustering show of stubborness.

I now divorce myself of you, for you seem only to do battle, and not to pursue intelligent discourse. I am in no need of a "rival" or an "enemy" on this forum. You are, in my estimation, not interested in what I have to say for any other reason than denouncing it. I am, in turn, not interesting in you for any other reason than simple amusement, and the small amount of hope that you might prove to be a worthwhile discussion partner someday.

You may now crow and boast of your deep victory over my nation's namesake, an empty victory over a disinterested opponent. Or you can mature a little. Again, totally up to you.


Look at the words you have chosen. This is an internet forum. Get a grip.

During the cold war, the Americans offered the West-German government joint-control of nuclear weapons based in the Federal Republic, but Germany declined.
We have approx. 150 American Nukes on our soil. They'll be removed soon. Our (otherwise incompetent) politicians just started demanding their removal.

Ein Deutscher']We have approx. 150 American Nukes on our soil. They'll be removed soon. Our (otherwise incompetent) politicians just started demanding their removal.


Dont worry-they'll be gone if and when it suits the US.

I'd say that the B2 is more useful than the Space Shuttle. Not only does it have a better safety record, it also does the job it was built for. The Space Cadillac doesn't (and I used to LOVE Nasa!).

I don't think it's fair to compare the B2 and the Space Shuttle. The shuttle has to face engineering challenges which are orders of magnitude beyond those faced by the B2. That's like saying a paper airplane has a better safety record than a B2.

Ein Deutscher']We have approx. 150 American Nukes on our soil. They'll be removed soon. Our (otherwise incompetent) politicians just started demanding their removal.

I would be interested in something verifying that.... President George W. Bush ordered the return to the US and dismantling of all tactical nuclear weapons in 1991, and the only deployed weapons at this point that I am aware of are aboard the nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines or near US Strike Command bases (all of which are in the continental United States).

I don't think it's fair to compare the B2 and the Space Shuttle. The shuttle has to face engineering challenges which are orders of magnitude beyond those faced by the B2. That's like saying a paper airplane has a better safety record than a B2.

that and the fact the Space Shuttle was first built in the late 1970s and is based on a design that dates back to World War 2 (a German concept amusingly enough), and that all of the current fleet were constructed in the 1980s..

while the B2 also dates back to a World War 2 concept, all were built in the 1990s and flying in the atmosphere is far less stressful on an airframe than space and upper atmospheric operations...

Still want something new and better and would rather have 20 space shuttles instead of 20 B2s...

What would the rest of the world do if the United States actually started doing everything we are demonized for? Just think: CIA assassin teams would be butchering every single political opponent around the globe (And not just the ones we REALLY don't like...I mean all of 'em). "Civilian casualties" would no longer be counted or something to be avoided...they'd be just as meaningless to us as they are to our enemies. American "counter-terrorism" squads planting bombs on 747s to get back at countries who spurned us...the list goes on. And this time it wouldn't just be happening in some nutjob's skull. It'd be real. How does 9/11 in Munich sound?

I'm not anti-global. Just pissed.

Let The Thread Die!!!

I would be interested in something verifying that.... President George W. Bush ordered the return to the US and dismantling of all tactical nuclear weapons in 1991, and the only deployed weapons at this point that I am aware of are aboard the nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines or near US Strike Command bases (all of which are in the continental United States).
It was in our news today. Might not have been interesting enough to appear in US media.

I would be interested in something verifying that.... President George W. Bush ordered the return to the US and dismantling of all tactical nuclear weapons in 1991, and the only deployed weapons at this point that I am aware of are aboard the nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines or near US Strike Command bases (all of which are in the continental United States).

Why do you even take anything he says seriously? All he does all day long is sit on the internet. He doesnt work, in a country that apparantly doesnt place that high of a regard on working, though they used to. He calls his politicians incompetent, but at least they ae doing something and not living off the public dole. He wants to blame someone for his ills, and in a repeat of history, Germans like to find scapegoats whenever their social policies go awry and unemployment rises. Except this time, their scapegoats arent defenseless unarmed citizens. So they are reduced to whining on internet chat boards.

Sometimes I think that he and the Von whatever person say what they do just to rile up people, and that they cannot possibly believe the things they are saying. Then I wake up and realize that this is the age of the internet, and even the completely insane have equal access.

Ein Deutscher']It was in our news today. Might not have been interesting enough to appear in US media.

have a link of any kind to that, or a name of the news outlet that announced it?

Ein Deutscher']It was in our news today. Might not have been interesting enough to appear in US media.

If you think that a foreign news outlet has precise information on where US nuclear weapons are, then you should stop reading Bild.

I don't think it's fair to compare the B2 and the Space Shuttle. The shuttle has to face engineering challenges which are orders of magnitude beyond those faced by the B2. That's like saying a paper airplane has a better safety record than a B2.

My point was that Nixon approved the shuttle, even though it was a bad idea with fudged numbers from the get go. We tossed aside twenty years of rocketry for no apparent reason, and gave up going beyond Low Earth Orbit for it.

As for comparing the vehicles, the shuttle has a 2:5 loss rate, vs. a 0:30 for the B2. AND the Shuttle Endeavor has only been in space about a dozen times. Since 1989. It's a sad joke.