Text 17122, 125 rader
Skriven 2011-04-20 00:20:33 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 Wednesday April 13 2011 11:29, you wrote to me:

 MV>> This "good for the local economy" is myth. That has nothing to do
 MV>> with anti-Americanism, it is verifiable fact.

 RB> I hardly dare to ask: "verifiable how?".

Come to Soesterberg and interview the locals.

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

 RB> Like it or not, Michiel, Germany is a soverign country and can allow
 RB> foreign bases or demand their closure at will.

Cuba ia a souverign country isn't it? It is no sectret that Cuba wants the Amis
out of Guantanamo Bay. So why are they still there?

 RB>>> But why should they?

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

 RB> The noise you get at any airport and there is no infringement of
 RB> national soverignty any more than at an embassy - which, by the way,
 RB> can also be closed.

Military aircraft often make a lot more noise than civil aircraft. Ever stood
within 500 meters of a couple of F15's taking off with full afterburner at a
60+ degree angle? I have. It is at least one order of magnitude louder than a
747 which is ten times as heavy.

regarding soverignty, they do not store nuclear weapons at embassies. plus that
embassies are usualy on the basis of reciprocity. Countries EXCHANGE
ambassadors. Yes, embassies can be closed and ambassadors can be evicted or
recalled. But the normal reaction is a tit for tat.

Th US has sevarel military basis in Germany. How many German military basis are
there in the US? How many European military basis? How many form ANY country in
the world?

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

 RB> Your problem, as long as the base is on German soil.

I don't want nuclear weapons in my back yard. In this day and age, they are a
liablility rather than an asset. There is no enemy that WE can use them
against, but if they fall into the wrong hands, they can be used against us. I
wish the Germans had the balls to tell the Amis to take them back to the US. Hl
I wish MY government had the balls to tell the Amis to remove the dozen or so
nukes that officially are not stored at the Peel Air Force Base back to the US.

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

 RB> Your belief. My first-hand observations were different.

You have no first hand observation with US military basis. The base in Dattlen
was British.

 RB>>> Ramstein is a large base and the medical facilities are
 RB>>> excellent,

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

 RB> Maybe you're unaware that badly wounded people sometimes need fast
 RB> treatment to stabilize their condition before they are fit to be sent
 RB> on a lengthy plane trip?

In that case they should not be transported at all, but stabilised on the spot.
remember MASH?

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

 RB> Sorry, but that's bullshit. Just another conspiracy fantasy.

No fantasy, it is standard military procedure to debrief in isolation. Just in
case.

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

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

 RB> You mean the reverse.

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

 RB> Just to finish this up, I have to admit I'm often astounded how far
 RB> the emotional pendulum in Europe has swung from the one extreme
 RB> "America, our friend and helper" (up to the 1960s) to the other
 RB> extreme "America, the great satan who does no good and much harm"

I think Vietnam was the turning point. In Korea they still were the
unchallenged good guys, but with agent orange, the benefit of the doubt was at
stake. People started asking "are these still the good guys?" And from then on,
it just got worse. The reality is that the majority of "interventions"
instigated by the US after WWII turned sour in the long run.

 RB> (since the success of Ho Chi Minh's propaganda in the mid to late
 RB> 1960s). At some point in time, the pendulum will swing back from such
 RB> extremes and then we'll hopefully see more balanced views again - with
 RB> criticism _and_ praise where each are due. But at the moment, I don't
 RB> think anyone is particularly happy about the situation.

I think the damage done in Iraq is irreversible. It was the final blow to the
US credibility as the unconditional good guys.


Cheers, Michiel

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