Text 17205, 132 rader
Skriven 2011-04-21 09:26:00 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 20 2011 13:56, you wrote to me:

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

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

 RB> Ever heard of "treaties"?

A treaty is sort a contract between sovereign states isn't it?

A contract that in this case:

1) Is between two parties, one of which no longer exists (the
   pre-revolution Cuban government)
2) Is over a hundred years old and has no time limitation.
3) Has no possibility of adjusting the financial compensation for
   inflation, rise of cost, etc.
4) Can not be terminated when one of the parties does not want to.

A contract that when it were between two civilian parties would have been been
redirected to the shredder by any decent unbiased court in any civilised
country.

The bottom line is that the Cubans can not get rid of the US base in Guantanomo
because the US refuses to go.

You know very well, that had it been the other way around, had there been a
Cuban base in the US, the Cubans would have been kicked out the day after
Castro came into power. The only reason the US is not kicked out of Guantanomo
is that the Cubans do not have big enough boots.

 RB> You're confusing Guantanemo with Ramstein.

Am I? How do we know that when push comes to shove, The same will not happen to
Ramstein as what happened to Guantanomo? That the US will simply refuse to
leave?

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

Just as Guantanomo still exists because the Cuban government permits it?

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

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

I am... through my representatives in the EU parliament.

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

There is talk about it here too. One of the problems is that officialy these
nuclear weapons are not there.

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

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

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

Yes, that too...

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

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

I do not really have a problem with wounded soldiers being treated on European
soil. What I have a problem with is large US military presence in my back yard.
Especially when it is under false pretence and involves nuclear weapons.

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

 RB>>> You mean the reverse.

 MV>> No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

 RB> Then you're wrong.

Hw about:

Russia was an alley during WWII. After that it became an enemy.

Iran was an alley. Then its people threw out the Shah and it became an enemy.

Iraq was an alley during the Iraq-Iran war, Later it became an enemy.

Mubarak was an alley...

Ghadaffi was an alley...

Need I go on?

 MV>> I think Vietnam was the turning point.

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

As I see it, what was irreversible is that we came to realise that we had been
subject to propaganda from BOTH sides.

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

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

Aren't you confusing cause and effect again? Who helped Ghadaffi stay in the
saddle for forty years?

And BTW, those rebels in Lybia are not screaming for the US to help them. They
are screaming for the EU to help them. Who naturrally are reluctant. They have
learned from the mistakes of the US...


Cheers, Michiel

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