Text 17504, 82 rader
Skriven 2011-04-27 15:13:41 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 17483 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
27 Apr 11 17:35, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe:

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

 RB>> You're joking ;-)

 MvdV> No Bob, I am dead serious. You claimed a souvereign country could
 MvdV> allow foreign military basis on its territory and disallow them at
 MvdV> will.

Do some research before you make such dramatic bullshit out of it. Google
the former US bases, Subic Bay and Clark AF Base, in the Philippines.

"Dec 28, 1991 ... The Philippines told the United States today that it
must withdraw from the Subic Bay naval base by the end of 1992."

 MvdV> I gave you a counter example. Cuba is unable to get rid of
 MvdV> the Gitmo hotel. The US does not want to leave and found a
 MvdV> "reason": the treaty. So they refuse to go. Period.

The treaty tells us that it still takes two to tango. Until recently, Cuba
hasn't asked for it back and the US hasn't offered to release it.

 MvdV> How do we know that when Germany asks the Americans to vacate
 MvdV> Ramstein, they will not find some "reason" and refuse to leave?

See "Philippines". The precedent has already been set.

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

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

Yeup. In spite of the rantings of the Cuban madman, there is still a lease
and it's terms must be observed.

 RB>> The Cuban government is not involved. The treatey was ratified and
 RB>> all following governments are bound by it. Even the Cubans
 RB>> understand that - why is it so hard for you to do so?

 MvdV> Because I can see that that treaty is a joke.

Only in your mind. When the treaty calls for a lease payment, and the
leasee's payments are up to date, then the land is still legally for use
by the leasee. No matter how much the land owner complains about it.

 MvdV> No reasonable man would hold someone to a treaty that is over a
 MvdV> century old and was signed when the world was a completely
 MvdV> different place from what it was now.

Since you're not a 'reasonable' man, that flys in the face of the treaty.

 MvdV> Obviusly the present Cuban government does NOT feel bound by the
 MvdV> treaty any more. They refuse to accept payment!

Only when the US elected a 'weak' POTUS did the Cubans (Fidel Castro) make
any waves over the site. That was January 31, 2009. One would think that
if Fidel wanted that base, he would have asked for it 50 years prior to
actually doing so. A little too late in my book.

 MvdV> Get those blinders off your eyes Bob. That joke of a treaty is just
 MvdV> an excuse. The Americans are still there because they refuse to
 MvdV> leave and Cuba does not have the clout to forcibly evict them.

When did the Cuban government address this issue at the UN? Or your ICC?

 MvdV> Had it been the other way around, the Cubans would have been kicked
 MvdV> out of Florida the day after Castro rose to power. Treaty or no
 MvdV> treaty.

Take a better look at Florida. The Miami area is Cuban for all intents and
purposes. Free Cubans, that is.

                R\%/itt

  Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)