Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, is this REALLY an issue for most Brits? I mean, the tone of the article is ridiculous. American troops aren't there to occupy, they are there as allies, and likely as fortification of NATO. Does anyone remember what that is? Or care? It probably boosts the local economies to have a station there, as it does in the US.
agreed. that newspaper acts like their nation is under occupation. in reality their government asked us to be there.
agreed. that newspaper acts like their nation is under occupation. in reality their government asked us to be there.
I would say it has become an issue for most Brits following the current NSA disclosures and the current controversial US Drone Campaign coupled with a lack of parliamentary accountability in terms of these foreign bases.
Furthermore you have to question why a foreign power needs to continue having such bases in this country and in Europe, long after the Cold War has finished and in a period when we no longer have a credible threat like the Warsaw Pact any more.
As for asking you to leave we are not going to under the terms of the current NATO Agreement, although the French left NATO's central command back in the mid 1960's and did tell you to leave, and there have been no American bases in France since.
So what's stopping the UK? More investigative committees, parliamentary inquiries needed? If its time to go, its time to go. Cut the cord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
I do suggest however if you think Europeans are free loaders that Americans go ahead and leave themselves, as I don't see any imminent threat to European security at a time of large scale US Budget cuts and I am perfectly sure Europe could survive without the current US Forces stationed here.
They are. Everyone knows the US presence has afforded opportunity for European nations to sacrifice defense spending to buttress their social programs and provide for their citizens. It's why the US had to lead NATO in responding to renewed ethnic cleansing on the European continent in the 1990s, while the Euros sat around debating, impotent.
This is actually why most Americans (myself included) think we should scale waaaay back on US presence around the world. Go isolationist circa early 1900s and let the world fend for itself.
And that may work out just fine for Europe. I suppose the European population is getting a bit too old to fight anyway. Just do us a favor: If something does happen, don't criticize the US for "not getting involved sooner" like the Euros do when discussing WW1 and WW2.
The problem is the tone of the Guardian article. It is simply typical obstinate British garbage. As if there's some crisis in occupation of British soil!
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-10-2014 at 11:59 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
So what's stopping the UK? More investigative committees, parliamentary inquiries needed? If its time to go, its time to go. Cut the cord.
Britain has already moved it's forces out of Europe. In terms of the US, they are entitled to remain as part of our NATO Agreement. However if the US is so critical of Europe and resents paying for European Defence why does it remain. It's for you to go and to save money from doing so, in terms of the UK we might seek to make US Bases more accountable but we are not going to demand you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
They are. Everyone knows the US presence has afforded opportunity for European nations to sacrifice defense spending to buttress their social programs and provide for their citizens. It's why the US had to lead NATO in responding to renewed ethnic cleansing on the European continent in the 1990s, while the Euros sat around debating, impotent.
Lets get this straight a force of 30,000 US Troops, a couple of front line USAF bases and a Naval Support Facility in Naples does not constitute defending us.
Indeed as I have already pointed out a recent 2009 Report by the EU Institute of Strategic Studies Report showed that the number of Main Battle Tanks held by the members of the EU was 9,800, with a further 7,951 Armoured Fighting Vehicles and 22,844 Armoured Personnel Carriers and over 2 million Regular Service Personnel and even greater numbers of reserve forces.
America accounts for nearly half of world defence expenditure, the EU a further quarter of all defence expenditure and the majority of the rest is spent by China, Russia, India, Japan and countries such as Australia and Canada. So just who are we defending ourselves and are the Americans with 30,00 troops and 29 tanks really that pivotal to this defence.
This is actually why most Americans (myself included) think we should scale waaaay back on US presence around the world. Go isolationist circa early 1900s and let the world fend for itself.
And that may work out just fine for Europe. I suppose the European population is getting a bit too old to fight anyway. Just do us a favor: If something does happen, don't criticize the US for "not getting involved sooner" like the Euros do when discussing WW1 and WW2.
The problem is the tone of the Guardian article. It is simply typical obstinate British garbage. As if there's some crisis in occupation of British soil!
Then we are in agreement, it is time for the US to finally go. In terms of the Guardian Article, I didn't write it, so can't be held responsible for it's entire contents, however I do agree with some of it's sentiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
No explanation? It's a map of the location of military bases around the world: French, US and UK.
Well it's not very accurate, because I can name half a dozen US Military bases in the UK, off the top of my head rather than just one. Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Alconbury, Molesworth, Fairford, Welford, Menwith Hill, Fylingdales, all spring to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
In other words, if your questioning the utility of maintaining bases around the world, why does the UK and France continue to maintain facilities flung across the globe? Once you answer that question, you will have the answer as to why the US keeps its bases in strategic areas considered key to ITS interests.
The UK will have withdrawn all it's forces from Germany in the next few years and indeed mainland Europe, the vast majority of UK facilities thereafter will be training facilities, British Dependencies and Peacekeeping Forces. Britain certainly does not have any thing like the US presence overseas
Please recall this same thought came up after the Cold War. Peace Dividend indeed.
Guess what? The Balkans exploded and our EU friends begged us to intervene. Indeed the UN sent forces which sucked given how their rules of engagment were written, and they had to end up being rescued by NATO forces after the massacres of the summer of 1995.
In December US Troops in Europe deployed to Bosnia/Croatia and neighboring Hungary to enforce a peace--the operation itself is known as Operation Joint Endeaovr. Over 21,000 US troops alone were in Bosnia! They all came from forces that were already in Europe--much cheaper than sending from the US. We were in Bosnia for 9 years (not the one year Bill Clinton promised), then later in Kosovo. So running away from Europe and leaving them solely to represent NATO invites future failure. Something to think about.
Please recall this same thought came up after the Cold War. Peace Dividend indeed.
Guess what? The Balkans exploded and our EU friends begged us to intervene. Indeed the UN sent forces which sucked given how their rules of engagment were written, and they had to end up being rescued by NATO forces after the massacres of the summer of 1995.
In December US Troops in Europe deployed to Bosnia/Croatia and neighboring Hungary to enforce a peace--the operation itself is known as Operation Joint Endeaovr. Over 21,000 US troops alone were in Bosnia! They all came from forces that were already in Europe--much cheaper than sending from the US. We were in Bosnia for 9 years (not the one year Bill Clinton promised), then later in Kosovo. So running away from Europe and leaving them solely to represent NATO invites future failure. Something to think about.
I think you will find Operation Joint Endeavor was a multi-national effort which involved 80,000 soldiers from 32 countries and not just the US.
and the current controversial US Drone Campaign coupled with a lack of parliamentary accountability in terms of these foreign bases.
Furthermore you have to question why a foreign power needs to continue having such bases in this country and in Europe, long after the Cold War has finished and in a period when we no longer have a credible threat like the Warsaw Pact any more.
so you don't see the russian federation as a military threat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
