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.
It serves Europe more....Russia still has a legitimate bone to pick with Germany. Because of Germany millions of Soviets citizens died. In their eyes Germany still hasn't answered enough for that. WE were what kept the Soviets from taking the rest of Germany. Our troops and bases. Now it's time for Germany to pony up and pay for their own security.
I have no bone with England, but pretty much the rest of them are dead beats.
Do we really want Germany to become militant again?
It serves Europe more....Russia still has a legitimate bone to pick with Germany. Because of Germany millions of Soviets citizens died. In their eyes Germany still hasn't answered enough for that. WE were what kept the Soviets from taking the rest of Germany. Our troops and bases. Now it's time for Germany to pony up and pay for their own security.
I have no bone with England, but pretty much the rest of them are dead beats.
Happy to hear that you know what "Russia" thinks - is Russia even a thinking entity? I hope you are aware that Germany was explicitly forbidden to have a large military again after WW2 and even after the reunification the size of their military was limited by contracts with the US (&Russia/France/Britain)? Not to mention that many European countries would feel very uncomfortable with Germany "ponying up" even if it does not pose any threat to them any more. The bases in Europe serve American interests first, they are not there to defend them against Russia or any other country for that matter. 30,000 military employees in Germany, many of them civilians, would do nothing to stop any foreign invasion and are a drop in the ocean compared to the almost 200,000 Bundeswehr soldiers.
"We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves, knowing full well that the Europeans will not do anything for us simply because we have in the past helped them."
This was aimed at De Gaulle, and it should be noted that in 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France, and all US Bases were shut for good. You won't find any US Bases in France and in the past when the US has bombed countries from British bases they have had to fly around French airspace.
During the Cold War many European countries had large defence forces, conscription and the spending of three to four percent on defence was the norm for major European powers at the time.
It also should be noted that Kennedy only let Britain have Polaris nuclear submarine technology in exchange for a submarine base at Holy Loch in Scotland, so he wasn't exactly an isolationist.
The British Prime Minister Macmillian made it plain to Kennedy that unless the nuclear deterrent could ‘be used when they wish by the British government…he would rather ‘drop the whole idea [and] undertake an agonising reappraisal of our military and political priorities’, suggesting that close ties between the UK and USA might end.
Indeed had the US not allowed the UK to have polaris then the UK could have had a review which may well have included US bases in Britain.
In the end the US caved in, and gave us the nuclear technology and polaris but only on the understanding that they could open and operate a new US submarine base at Holy Loch.
"We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves, knowing full well that the Europeans will not do anything for us simply because we have in the past helped them."
"We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share"
I agree, it is about time they pay for waht they agreed to.
In FACT, I would like to see them pay for ALL THE YEARS they did NOT pay.
Other than a guideline stating that they should work towatds 2% GDP Defence Spending there is no legally binding stipulation regarding NATO Defence Spending.
US Bases are a matter for the US, and the US can leave any time it wants, however the idea of paying for US Bases in the UK is a non-starter and the only other countries with a sizeavle US presence is Germany and Italy.
Recent polls of the German population show that many Germans would support the US closing it's bases, and most other countries aren't that bothered, indeed the only countries that want US bases are Poland and the Baltic states.
"We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves, knowing full well that the Europeans will not do anything for us simply because we have in the past helped them."
The NATO alliance pact has been used to come to the defense of just one country since it was started... the US invasion of Iraq...
We need to stop patting ourselves on the back and thinking we do so much. We decide to spend the money. We continue to spend the money. Nobody else is asking us to. Verdict seems pretty simple, the US should cut spending.
The NATO alliance pact has been used to come to the defense of just one country since it was started... the US invasion of Iraq...
We need to stop patting ourselves on the back and thinking we do so much. We decide to spend the money. We continue to spend the money. Nobody else is asking us to. Verdict seems pretty simple, the US should cut spending.
Afghanistan was a NATO operation in support of a UN ISAF Peacekeeping role.
Iraq was not a NATO operation but did involve some US NATO Allies.
They were both US military conflicts with support from some NATO members.
The rest of the world isn't going around looking for boogymen and when failing to find any they manufacture them.
The US has a foreign policy problem, NATO doesn't have a spending problem. We do.
Afghanistan was a NATO Operation, Iraq wasn't.
In terms of spending, European countries have been significantly increasing spending and in terms of US Bases, 85% have closed since the Cold War and US Forces have reduced significantly over the years and will no doubt further reduce in the future.
Outside of Germany and Italy there are not many US Service Personnel, and I wouldn't push the issue too far if I were Trump, as US Forces are not always that popular among Italians, whilst a recent poll of Germans found that many would be happy for US bases to close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
And what are all these bases doing in Italy? Here's the way one US military official in Italy (who asked not to be named) explained the matter to me:
"I'm sorry, Italy, but this is not the cold war. They're not here to defend Vicenza from a [Soviet] attack. They're here because we agreed they need to
be here to do other things, whether that's the Middle East or the Balkans or Africa".
Germans would actually welcome the withdrawal of American troops stationed in their country, a new poll has found – as Donald Trump threatens to pull the plug on military support.
The finding comes on the first day of a Nato summit in which the US president is urging Europe to spend more on defence if it wants to continue to receive American military protection.
But far from being seen as a threat, a YouGov poll for the dpa news agency found that more Germans would welcome the departure of the 35,000-strong American force than would oppose it.
42 per cent said they supported withdrawal while just 37 per cent wanted the soldiers to stay, with 21 per cent undecided.
Do we really want Germany to become militant again?
Yes. Absolutely. The country is so efficient and let them do whatever they want to do.
Why would it need to wage war? Germany is the world's second largest exporter, she has the rest of Europe in her hand (so to speak) and is helping the entire continent regain its economic prosperity. Whatever power can be had, Germany already has. What else is there?
Germany today gains NOTHING by starting any wars with anybody.
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.
I hope you are aware that Germany was explicitly forbidden to have a large military again after WW2 and even after the reunification the size of their military was limited by contracts with the US (&Russia/France/Britain)? Not to mention that many European countries would feel very uncomfortable with Germany "ponying up" even if it does not pose any threat to them any more. The bases in Europe serve American interests first, they are not there to defend them against Russia or any other country for that matter. 30,000 military employees in Germany, many of them civilians, would do nothing to stop any foreign invasion and are a drop in the ocean compared to the almost 200,000 Bundeswehr soldiers.
)
