Text 16746, 220 rader
Skriven 2011-04-12 12:33:30 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 Monday April 11 2011 11:15, you wrote to me:

 MV>> We were discussing American basis, not British.

 RB> So British troops stationed at a foreign base are somehow different
 RB> from American troops stationed at a foreign base?

It explains the difference in observation doesn't it. But it looks like you
won't take 'yes' for an answer...

 RB> Sorry, Michiel, but despite all this anti-American talk here, American
 RB> troops - at least in Germany - were not surrounded by aggressive mobs
 RB> when they left the base, but were sold local goods and local
 RB> entertainment.

Same here in The Netherlands. Americans were free to leave the base and
purchase locally. Fact is that they seldom did. And why should they when they
could buy everything they needed at the base. Cheaper because of the taxes.
They would be fools not too.

As I have mentioned before, there was a US air base not 10 km from here. We had
an American neighbour. I have been taken the "Camp New Amsterdam" as that base
was called several times. It was like a US enclave, just as Ward mentioned in
another message. I was the first time I ate sweet corn. Imported from the US
and not available in the shops here then.

My neighbour had a special licence for his car. No road tax. ("GN" number) He
filled it up at the base, Tax free. Twice a year they drove to Wiesbaden, where
there was a much bigger base.

It is just as Ward said in another message. Interaction with the local economy
was minimal.

This "good for the local economy" is myth.

That has nothing to do with anti-Americanism, it is verifiable fact.

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

 MV>> Note: "were".

 RB> In this case, the "were" is quite a piece back - Germany has been an
 RB> independent, soverign country since May 5, 1955 and reunited on March
 RB> 15, 1991.

So what were these "you are now leaving the American sector"signs doing in the
sixties and seventies Berlin?

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

 MV>> They were not when those bases were etsablished.

 RB> No, but now they could demand they be closed, and they would be.

Ever heard of political pressure? I very much doubt Ramstein would be closed at
a first request by the German government.

 RB> But why should they?

Because they are fed up with the noise and the infringement of souvereignty?

I hope the Germans come to their senses and demand that Ramstein is closed. It
is much too close to ME for comfort. I do not like living near a bull's eye.

 RB> As mentioned above, the anti-American talk here simply doesn't reflect
 RB> the local feeling for such bases, at least not in Germany.

I do not believe Germany is much different from the Netherlands in that
respect. Are you trying to tell me that US military personnel based in Germany
is different form US military personnel based in The Netherlands?

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

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

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

You do not need a US military base to keep a city going either.

Just one more time, so that it sinks in: "Good for the local economy" is myth.

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

 RB> You apparently have no idea of how many badly wounded soldiers have
 RB> been cared for there before being in a condition for the longer haul
 RB> back to the States. Ramstein is a large base and the medical
 RB> facilities are excellent,

Of course they are. If they were not so good and people would die because they
could not get the treatment they could get in the US itself, their family would
stop accepting that wounded soldiers would get first treatment in Ramstein
instead of that they be flown directly to to the US.

I don't buy it. Wounded soldiers are not flown to Ramstein, because it is close
to the place of action, they are flown there because it is at a convenient
DISTANCE from the US.

Ramstein is a debriefing area. One may also call it "quarantine".

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

 RB> Shorter distances, as already noted.

Nonsense. Even if that plane that picked them up in Iran could not fly directly
to the US, they could have gassed up or transferred to another plane on any
airfield in Europe.

There was no need for a six week "debriefing" at Ramstein. Except of course
that when a bomb goes off, the US powers that be prefer it to go of in Germany,
rather than in the US.

 RB> Why do things the hard way when there's an easier method? I'm not sure
 RB> _what_ "hostages" you're talking about here,

The people from the US embassy in Thereran that were held hostage by the Ianian
government in the late 70ties. The one that were not rescued in a spectacular
rescue mission because that rescue mission miserably failed in the dessert,

 RB> but an intermediate stop also saves wear and tear on people subjected
 RB> to physical stress.

Excuses. Face the real world Bob. They were not flown to the US, because they
went through quarantine in Germany first.

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

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

"At a comfortable distance from the US" is still very important. To the US.

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

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

Why do they need military basis for that? An embassy should be enough to be
aware of the local and regional situation. No Bob, if you need military
outposts, you are out to control.

 RB> As for political and military control, you must be joking. Or do you
 RB> think the massive demonstrations here against the Iraq invasion, the
 RB> lack of participation of Germany there and it's tacit alliance with
 RB> the French and Russians were all organized by the Americans using
 RB> their bases to "control" the country?

Not to control Germany as such. To control the WORLD. To be able to intervene
when something happens that is not to the liking of those who control. No,
there is no direct intervention in German affairs. But it sure it convenient
that wherever something unpleasant happens in the world, there is always US
military nearby...

 RB> And if so, why? Congress, at the time, appeared to be quite angry
 RB> about that so apparently even Congress didn't know the USA
 RB> "controlled" Germany.

As I said, they do not directly control Germany. But make no mistake, if
something would happen in germany that the US does not like at all, they WILL
intervene. With military force if they deem it necessary.

 RB>>> Why? You can't imagine a threat to the USA arising in the region,
 RB>>> one that it would be best to know in advance?

Sure, I can imagine something arising anywhere in the world - even Germany -
that the US would consider a threat that they would like to know in advance.

Given however that almost all of those threats in the last 50 years have either
been caused by the US itself, or only existed in their imagination, I really do
not see why we should go along and appease them by allowing US military
everywhere.

 RB>>> Who thought Somialia and Afghanistan could be a threat to the USA
 RB>>> 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
 MV>> was trained by the US to fight afainst the Russians.

 RB> Whether he was trained or not is a moot question. Afghan partisans
 RB> fighting the Russians _were_ armed,

By whom? O yes, I forgot, by the US.

 RB>  but not bin Laden specifically. Aside from which, all that is ancient
 RB> history.

Those who do not listen to history are bound to repeat it.

 RB> The Germans were enemies yesterday, friends today. Same for the
 RB> Japanese. Times change. Unfortunately, some former allies are now (or
 RB> were: think of the USSR, now Russia) enemies. It works both ways.

The US has a good record of turning former allies into enemies...

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

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

 RB> Hell of a lot better than from Kansas.

Again: nonsense. Iran is over the horizon both in Germany and in Kansas. If you
use over the horizon devices (read satellites) it makes no difference if you
are in Germany or in Kansas.

Cheers, Michiel

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