Text 16670, 119 rader
Skriven 2011-04-11 11:15:58 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 16655 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Monday April 11 2011 at 00:26:

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

RB>> Maybe where you are. But in Datteln, the locals did everything but
RB>> beg the British not to close the base. Unfortunately, they still did.

MV> We were discussing American basis, not British.

So British troops stationed at a foreign base are somehow different from
American troops stationed at a foreign base? Sorry, Michiel, but despite all
this anti-American talk here, American troops - at least in Germany - were not
surrounded by aggressive mobs when they left the base, but were sold local
goods and local entertainment. Just normal people, albeit with uniforms and
most couldn't speak German - but that applied to the British, too.

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
RB>>>> staging area for operations in the middle east and Afghanistan.

MV>>> The Germans were not in a postion to say "no" were they?

MV> Note: "were".

In this case, the "were" is quite a piece back - Germany has been an
independent, soverign country since May 5, 1955 and reunited on March 15, 1991.
Any German decisions since then were made by Germany and nobody else.

RB>> Of course the could have. They're a soverign country nowadays.

MV> They were not when those bases were etsablished.

No, but now they could demand they be closed, and they would be. But why should
they? As mentioned above, the anti-American talk here simply doesn't reflect
the local feeling for such bases, at least not in Germany.

RB>> But why should they do something that would damage their own economy?

MV> Why would people stop going to church and throw away their ticket to
MV> heaven?

Because you don't need heaven to keep a city or region going economically. The
rest is just play talk.

MV>>> Nah.. Ramstein is not convenient for its medical facilities, but a
MV>>> convenient "debriefing area"...

You apparently have no idea of how many badly wounded soldiers have been cared
for there before being in a condition for the longer haul back to the States.
Ramstein is a large base and the medical facilities are excellent, much better
for war wounds than you'll find anywhere else outside the States. Naturally,
it's also used for other purposes (for example "quick response" missions - to
which I might add that military excursions require the permission of the German
government), but you shouldn't simply brush the medical aspect aside.

RB>> Tell it to the Germans and the Americans. I don't make the decisions.
RB>> But check the distances before you say anything.

MV> Why were the freed hostages first flown to Ramstein to be debriefed.
MV> They wdid not need urgent medical treatment. There was no reason hy
MV> they could not be flown to the US to be debriefed there....  Except
MV> that...

Shorter distances, as already noted. Why do things the hard way when there's an
easier method? I'm not sure _what_ "hostages" you're talking about here, but an
intermediate stop also saves wear and tear on people subjected to physical
stress.

MV> Ramstein is not favorite because it is close to the Middle east, it is
MV> favorite because it is at a safe distance from the US.

The latter was the original idea. The former is more important nowadays.

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

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

MV>>> If they need to control that region.. yes.

"Control" in the sense of being aware of the local and regional situation,
surely true.

As for political and military control, you must be joking. Or do you think the
massive demonstrations here against the Iraq invasion, the lack of
participation of Germany there and it's tacit alliance with the French and
Russians were all organized by the Americans using their bases to "control" the
country? And if so, why? Congress, at the time, appeared to be quite angry
about that so apparently even Congress didn't know the USA "controlled"
Germany.

RB>> Why? You can't imagine a threat to the USA arising in the region, one
RB>> that it would be best to know in advance? Who thought Somialia and
RB>> Afghanistan could be a threat to the USA before Osama bin Laden?

MV> Confusing cause and effect again. Osama Bin Laden did not become a
MV> threat until AFTER thge US started meddling in Afghanisten. OBL was
MV> trained by the US to fight afainst the Russians.

Whether he was trained or not is a moot question. Afghan partisans fighting the
Russians _were_ armed, but not bin Laden specifically. Aside from which, all
that is ancient history. The Germans were enemies yesterday, friends today.
Same for the Japanese. Times change. Unfortunately, some former allies are now
(or were: think of the USSR, now Russia) enemies. It works both ways.

RB>> No need to "control" the region, but definitely one to know what is
RB>> going on. And that's something you can't do from a base in Kansas.

MV> You can't do that from a base in Germany either.

Hell of a lot better than from Kansas.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)