Text 16533, 76 rader
Skriven 2011-04-08 00:46:37 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Hello Robert,

On Thursday April 07 2011 08:10, you wrote to Bob Ackley:

 BA>> Why does the US need to have military bases in Europe?

 RB> The original reason was to use them as "forward posts" to keep the
 RB> Russians away.

Or perhaps with the knowledge we have now, we should say it was the original
_excuse_.

Ok, that was the stick.

 BA>> Other than to support the local economies, that is.

And that was the carrot.

Both however turned out to be Hollywood stage props. What some already
suspected for over 30 years to be a hoax, but too many unfortunately believed,
turned out to be a hoax indeed when after the cold war, archives were opened.
The Soviet Union had never any intention to invade Western Europe. It was all a
big misunderstanding. All too eagerly encouraged by those with an agenda.

As for supporting the local economy... There was a big US air force base ten km
north of here. Soesterberg. (Not to be confused with Soest in Germany where Joe
was stationed.) The contribution to the local economy was next to zero and
certainly did not outweigh the negative effects. We had an American neighbour
who was stationed there. I have been on the base several times when he took me
there, presenting me as a member of his family. Those guys did not buy locally.
They bought everyting at the base. Tax free, flown in from the US.

This whole "support the local economy" was a myth. When the Americans left
after the end of the cold war, not many were sorry to see them go.

 RB> Nowadays, they're mainly used for military operations in NATO, with
 RB> the exception of Ramstein in Germany, which is also used as a staging
 RB> area for operations in the middle east and Afghanistan.

The Germans were not in a postion to say "no" were they? After all, they were
occuped territory...

 RB> Logistically, that's only reasonable,

Reasonable for whom? What was in it for the Germans?

 RB> since it would be quite a job (and quite expensive) to fly everything
 RB> needed there or in the middle east directly from the USA. Ramstein is
 RB> probably a good deal cheaper. And, of course, it also has excellent
 RB> medical facilities for wounded soldiers who need intensive care
 RB> immediately and can't wait to be flown out to the States.

They can not be flown for Ramstein, to the US, but they can be flown from Iraq
to Ramstein?

Nah.. Ramstein is not convenient for its medical facilities, but a convenient
"debriefing area". Ramstein is US territory for all intents and purposes when
it is convenient. And when it is not convenient it is at a convenient distance
from the US. That is why US personel that got into a "situation" that needs
debriefing, are debriefed at Ramstein and not flown directly to the US. In
Ramstein they can switch context in milliseconds from "in the US" to "not in
the US".

 BA>> Does the US really need military installations in Australia?

 RB> Probably for the same reason as in Europe. It's a great staging area
 RB> for anything that develops in the southern Pacific: plenty of room,
 RB> friendly, stable government.

If they need to control that region.. yes. But why do they need to control that
region?

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)