Text 17168, 125 rader
Skriven 2011-04-20 13:56:26 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 17122 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Wednesday April 20 2011 at
00:20:

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

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

Ever heard of "treaties"? You're confusing Guantanemo with Ramstein.

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.

MV> Military aircraft often make a lot more noise than civil aircraft.

Quite possible. But as you know, no top German politician lives near Ramstein.
And as long as _they_ are not irritated by the noise... "politics makes strange
bedfellows".

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

May well be, but that still doesn't change the fact that Ramstein still exists
because the German government permits it.

MV> Th US has sevarel military basis in Germany. How many German military
MV> basis are there in the US?

I know of one offhand - Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls. The largest
German air force training center in the world is located there. Otherwise no
idea, but it's irrelevant anyway. If the Germans don't ask, why should the
Americans jump up and shout "Yes!"?

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

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

MV> I don't want nuclear weapons in my back yard.

Understandable, but neither you nor I can influence that in any way. Talk to
the German government.

Incidentally, I seem to remember there has recently been some talk about this
in Berlin, but can't remember if anything concrete was said.

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.

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

I know... "totally" different ;-)

The Americans speak with a midwest twang, but the British use cockney ;-)

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?

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

I think it's done in stages until they can be properly cared for in the USA.
And frankly don't see your problem here.

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.

MV> No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

Then you're wrong.

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"

MV> I think Vietnam was the turning point.

Doubtless so in Germany. I can still remember the total hysteria and the
"Ho-Ho-Ho-Chi-Minh" shouting crowds of youngsters without a clue except what
they read in the papers, well influenced by the propaganda the North Vietnamese
were so expert at providing.

That later developed into the "Greens" - at the time, I figured the political
left had simply found a new topic to scream about, after the Vietnam war ended
and nobody was interested in Vietnam anymore, but as has always been the case,
if I make a mistake, it's a _big_ one. Unfortunately.

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 -
RB>> with criticism _and_ praise where each are due. But at the moment, I
RB>> don't think anyone is particularly happy about the situation.

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

Maybe. Wait until some _really_ bad guys show up and see how fast people start
to scream for the Americans to help. It's already happened in Libya, by the
way.

Cheers, Bob

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