It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American bases in Europe and the war on terror

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
You should have said!

If I'd known you were still at school I'd have realised you're, obviously, completely right in everything you say.

By 1941 we were just thinking about the possibility of a wheel - thank God for the US bringing us enlightenment, and electric light!

The ignorance & certainty of youth! Bless.


Well, considering that the higher education I am getting is considered to be among, if not THE, best in the world for my field, I think you would understand how I would find your 'America has a bad educational system' BS a joke.

Please, if you consider your self such a smart and educated person, do aply to my School of business. I'm suuuuuuure some one like you could get in no problem - right?


And I do love your pathetic use of the word ignorance. Maybe you don't know what it means?

Please, do tell me why I am ignorant because I assert Europe would have fallen to Hitler without our industrial, and later military, support. I am all ears.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by American Mad Man]




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
Convicted…by a Japanese court in the region where the crime was committed.

I never said they weren't convicted. I just gave it as an example that can catalyze people to mobilize against the bases. And as my other examples showed, conviction for the crimes committed isn't always the case. I would also like to remind you that you only gave the outcome in the end and don't mention that if it weren't for the protests endangering the future existence of the base, the suspects would most likely not have been handed over. Before that incident, they most of the time got away with it and this was one incident too much for them.



Originally posted by cjf
To help complete the thought, there are intangibles that stimulate and foster economic growth other than just jobs and cash injections...but the host country benefits immensely from US troop deployemnts:

I'm sorry but I find that article to have very little - actually none - credibility, it's only purpose seems to be to try to find reasons to put having US bases in a positive light, which is little surprising considering the Heritage Foundation is a pretty conservative think tank. I could start to debunk some of the ridiculous claims on that page, but that would take me far too long and would change the subject a little.



Originally posted by American Mad Man
The only reason Europe lasted untill we got involved is because of our industrial support.

That wasn't support, that was seeing an economic opportunity in war and making use of it. The "support" you mention wasn't "gifts" or "aid" but paid.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The only reason Europe lasted untill we got involved is because of our industrial support.

That wasn't support, that was seeing an economic opportunity in war and making use of it. The "support" you mention wasn't "gifts" or "aid" but paid.


No, it was support. Had the US wanted to continue it's stated policy of isolationism, we would not have sold Europe arms and consequently gotten on Germanys death list. Frankly, we could have sided with Germany as they were kicking all of Europes butts, and tried to preserve our nation.

And like I said, please show me how Europe would have survived without the US. We made just about every weapon used by the Allies in the war. Without the US, Hitler wins, period - end of story.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And like I said, please show me how Europe would have survived without the US. We made just about every weapon used by the Allies in the war. Without the US, Hitler wins, period - end of story.


Did the US make the Spitfire? or Hurricane? Were there American women making bombs in the factories while their husbands were away fighting? The British women were.
How many Americans were involved in the 'Battle of Britain'?

Educate me here, what weapons did the US give the allies during WW11?

Sorry, but i know the US had a hand in WW11, but were they there in 1939? Thats when they were needed. Maybe, just maybe the US could have made a difference at the start, and not at the finish.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Without the US, Hitler wins, period - end of story.

Actually, it's not that simple. I'd bet on Stalin.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Well, considering that the higher education I am getting is considered to be among, if not THE, best in the world for my field, I think you would understand how I would find your 'America has a bad educational system' BS a joke.

Please, if you consider your self such a smart and educated person, do aply to my School of business. I'm suuuuuuure some one like you could get in no problem - right?


And I do love your pathetic use of the word ignorance. Maybe you don't know what it means?

Please, do tell me why I am ignorant because I assert Europe would have fallen to Hitler without our industrial, and later military, support. I am all ears.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by American Mad Man]


If I do aply wil my speeling counnt agaiansst me?

Got enough degrees thanks (real ones!).

I did say your support was appreciated (and paid for!)

I only questioned your sweeping assumptions - as per my post I think you completely overlooked our (and the Empire's) contribution and support for you - we gave you loads of stuff. I appreciate you don't know about this but a little research would provide enlightenment and, perhaps, a more balanced view.


cjf

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
I never said they weren't convicted


Yet you said prior….


Originally posted by Simon666
where they raped a 12 year old schoolgirl and nearly got away with it


And later…..after asked and answered


Originally posted by Simon666
That article merely gives the level of crimes. It may very well be, but it doesn't mention whether the guilty parties were also punished properly or were protected simply because of their nationality from the punishment they deserved


Your statements imply what? What conclusions are you attempting to draw? What possibly could be the point you are trying to make? Yet I provided information which included the convictions you did not read.

Please stop trying to be ‘gray’ when given black and white replies.

. ….I follow with….

“As well as links to further articles (which have more links and why I posted this particular article) which follow the story to completion, such as in this one….

You add…to my point…


Originally posted by Simon666
I just gave it as an example that can catalyze people to mobilize against the bases.


Followed by this…..


Originally posted by Simon666
And as my other examples showed, conviction for the crimes committed isn't always the case.


I have fully explained my position concerning the microcasmic examples given, your examples, and provided further reading, but again what is your point?

Is conviction of alleged crimes always the case everywhere? Is conviviction of alleged crimes justifiable for the 'big picture'? If the country, a nation, merely deems a crime a crime because of ‘mob rule’ or mass reasoning is it still considered justice or a travesty of justice when ruled against ethics; law? IS it? When is it 'OK' to prescribe law and who is responsible?


Originally posted by Simon666
Before that incident, they most of the time got away with it and this was one incident too much for them.


This is your opinion and an oversimplification given the extremely narrow scope of your argument.


Originally posted by Simon666
I would also like to remind you that you only gave the outcome in the end and don't mention that if it weren't for the protests endangering the future existence of the base, the suspects would most likely not have been handed over.


Again and to the topic of the post, please refer to my previous statements. The outcome concerning the future of the base is/was in no question, please read the links as provided.


Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by cjf
To help complete the thought, there are intangibles that stimulate and foster economic growth other than just jobs and cash injections...but the host country benefits immensely from US troop deployemnts:


I'm sorry but I find that article to have very little - actually none - credibility,


Is there some other relevant, tangible creditable information which is accessible contrary to the article other than your opinion? (hint: I mentioned other sources , such as RAND, and of course those you can find on your own


I would, however, be most interested in reading your examples to support your position, if any.


Originally posted by Simon666
it's only purpose seems to be to try to find reasons to put having US bases in a positive light, which is little surprising considering the Heritage Foundation is a pretty conservative think tank. I could start to debunk some of the ridiculous claims on that page, but that would take me far too long and would change the subject a little.


If the claims are “ridiculous” as you say, debunking should not be laborious and based upon your statement fully expected. (Hint II: I mentioned other sources added to those you can find on your own) Please debunk my given example, but do not call my source biased when your statement is every bit to the core biased , narrow minded and stands only upon your singular unfounded opinion.

BTW your opinion is just that, nothing more, and obviously your time is worth more than mine or anyone else which may want to contribute significantly more than ‘mere conjecture’ and ‘simple opinion’ for a discussion. No one here on this forum, or reading this topic, need even turn their computer on to find responses such as yours. So, based upon your own words, why do you bother to make another post, or any posts for that matter, go write for a tabloid.


.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by noise
Ok, so if France dosn't want American bases on its soil, pull them out. France hates our guts any way. Next time France is getting crapped on I know who they'll ask for help.

Germany needs American bases for the simple fact that after WW2 they were denied the right to have a military. Over the years they've been slowly given back those rights. And like its been pointed out several times in this thread, for years there was the threat of Soviet Invasion. And yes, There are quite a few American military personell in Germany. Right now they are resupplying our efforts in the middle east.

There are no Eurpean military bases on American Soil for the obvious reason... America can defend herself!


Are you trying to imply that the UK cant defend herself?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This is all very interesting but lets not forget one thing, the cold war is over. Russia really isn't in a position to overun Europe anymore since the combined forces of France and UK could give just about any country in the world a run for their money. Not to mention that the Ukraine with it's pro-west president has the 4th largest land forces (tanks, armored vehicles ect.) in the world. Or did in 2001, they may have reduced it by now but it's still a major hurdle for Russia if they wanted to invade Europe, especially if it was backed up by aircraft from France and the UK.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by Simon666
I never said they weren't convicted


Yet you said prior….


Originally posted by Simon666
where they raped a 12 year old schoolgirl and nearly got away with it

"Nearly got away with it" is different from "got away with it", Einstein.



Originally posted by cjf
If the claims are “ridiculous” as you say, debunking should not be laborious and based upon your statement fully expected. (Hint II: I mentioned other sources added to those you can find on your own) Please debunk my given example, but do not call my source biased when your statement is every bit to the core biased , narrow minded and stands only upon your singular unfounded opinion.

Well, the figure of an increase of 1 percent annual GDP growth per capita is but one example. It is one thing to find a statistical correlation, but that doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship. For example, the number of pirates in the world has gone down for centuries, yet oil consumption has increased, so when we put the two in a nice graph, could we say that there is some absurd relationship between the number of pirates and oil consumption? I don't think so.

Another ridiculous claim is a “security umbrella” effect and an “innovation diffusion” effect, the notion that US troops in German, Japan or elsewhere is necessary for "stability" for investors is based on nothing. There has been no instability in Germany or Japan, and US troops have nothing to do with that, the political system and inherent stability of those countries themselves has. Same goes with the "innovative diffusion" effect. Anyone who isn't brainwashed by rightwing rethoric can see right through it.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
i find it very disturbing that the USAarmy has +14 Nukes stored in the basis of KleinenBrogel in Belgium, 29 kilometers from my house.

I find this a scary thought... Why ? Cause the USA is still the only nation on earth to have deployed a nuke in warfare, and frankly the threath that the usa will show it's Nuclear power scares me more then ANY "terrorist" nation.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I was also stationed in Germany (Fischbach bei Dahn, near Pirmasens, about 35 Kilometers to Kaiserslautern.) When the Pirmasens community closed, it was a major hit on the local economy. Pirmasens now is like a ghost town on Friday and Saturday nights. This is not good for a city of 50,000+ people.

My wife is German, and went back to live with her near Pirmasens, after the soldiers pulled out. The housing area is now a refugee asylum. On the old Kaserne are a few car dealers. In Fischbach(where I was stationed), there is now an airplane factory. The barracks house different businesses. But the old bunkers (where the 'special weapons' were kept), are still there, but in dilapidated conditions.

Living in Germany, I applied for a GS (government) job. I was told, If I had a German work permit, I could not obtain a job on the army post. Something to do with some agreements we had with the Germans. That really galled me. After that experience, I really began to despise the soldiers in Germany. I couldn't go to the PX. I was an American for Christ's sake, but I couldn't get into Rammstein Air Base to apply for a job.

Payback went like this: In a store, when an American would walk up to me and ask, "Do you speak English?" because he needed help with buying something, I would look at him and say, "No, not a word", and walk away. I would also yell stuff out of the car window at the PT formations as they ran. The Germans got a kick out of it. I was so angry at not being able to work with my own countrymen, that I wanted nothing more to do with any military people in Germany.

Realize, the soldiers in Germany behave much differently than the ones in America. There is this haughtiness; this 'above you' attitude. I was that way when I first arrived at my station too. But, as time went on (and as I am Croatian, historical allies of the Germans), my attitude changed. Living as an American on the German economy, not affiliated with the military, is a whole different experience. A person can appreciate the local populance more.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

I find this a scary thought... Why ? Cause the USA is still the only nation on earth to have deployed a nuke in warfare, and frankly the threath that the usa will show it's Nuclear power scares me more then ANY "terrorist" nation.


We don’t need to use nukes unless we are first attacked by nukes. WWII was a different situation you’re applying it to today’s world and its just not the same.


And the US is down sizing its presence in Europe because frankly we don’t need to be there anymore. We kept their arses from being overrun for 40 years now they can take care of themselves. The US is moving out of Europe and relocating in southeast and central Asia for the new campaign, containing China.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
We could look after ourelves before.....



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Without the US, Hitler wins, period - end of story.

Actually, it's not that simple. I'd bet on Stalin.


Stalin doesn't even believe what you just said. A quote from the nut bag himself:




I want to tell you from the Russian point of view, what the President and the United States have done to win the war. The most important things in this war are machines. The United States has proven that it can turn out from 8,000 to 10,000 airplanes per month. Russia can only turn out, at most. 3,000 airplanes a month . . . . The United States, therefore, is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines, through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.


Very informative link



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Did the US make the Spitfire? or Hurricane?
Designe them? No. But we built the parts for you. We brought you the suplies to make them. Without the US, you wouldn't have had any aircraft.


Were there American women making bombs in the factories while their husbands were away fighting?


Yes, look up 'Rosie the Riveter'. We did the same exact thing with our women, only on a much larger scale.


How many Americans were involved in the 'Battle of Britain'?


Millions if you consider the number of our men that made your weapons and brought them to you.


Educate me here, what weapons did the US give the allies during WW11?


You can use Google yourself if you really want to know. I am not your tutor. Just put it this way:



World War II was won in largest part because of superior allied armaments production. The United States greatly outproduced all its "allies and "all its enemies and, at its output peak in late 1943 and early 1944, was manufacturing munitions almost equal to the combined total of both its friends mid adversaries. The prodigious arms manufacturing capability of the United States is well known by even casual readers of World War II history, if its decisiveness is not as well understood.


Same link as my other post



Sorry, but i know the US had a hand in WW11, but were they there in 1939? Thats when they were needed. Maybe, just maybe the US could have made a difference at the start, and not at the finish.


Sorry, but if Brittain and France weren't playing appease the Fuhrer with Hitler, there never would have been a WWII. It rests squarely on France and England that Hitler was ever allowed to build up his army, and subsequently take over Europe.

Why should the US - a country with a national policy of isolation - get involved in ANOTHER world war started by our idiot relatives half way across the world?

And if you study your history, you will see that we did everything we could to help you. Hell, if you talk to a lot of people on this board, they will tell you that we allowed Pearl Harbor to happen just so we COULD get involved in this war to save your asses (again).

Any way, that is the conclusion of this history lesson, as it is a bit off topic. More to the point of this thread, if you Euros want us gone, fine.

The fact is, as much as you may say you want us gone, the people whos buisnessess are destroyed by our leaving inevitably change their tune. The economic impact is greater then most of you Euros care to admit.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Thanks for calling us idiots, next time you need someone to die with you just give us a call ok.


cjf

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
"Nearly got away with it" is different from "got away with it", Einstein.


Agreed.

You have however implied ‘catalysts’ (and a few extreme microcosmic events at best) which supposedly move 'people' pro/con about ‘foreign’ bases. blah blah blah.... You have implied ‘they nearly got away with it’ to reinforce your opinioned statement leaning toward lax treatment as a further catalyst. Pahhhh

This point, your point, is weak and is founded upon what….no real convictions?, Near ‘presumptions’ of innocence by relation….no? You simply state misunderstood semantics and syntax as your basis of insult, and still provide no answer to your overblown and 'out-of-context' opinion.

You don’t see you have made my point (added: you have not replied to the subject matter) US troops being convicted and as to what happened in the end….disproves your theory… what happened to the bases (oops nothing), local governments etc etc (it is no longer news)…..nothing occurred which was extraordinary and the point...your premise is absolutely moot.


Originally posted by Simon666
For example, the number of pirates in the world has gone down for centuries, yet oil consumption has increased, so when we put the two in a nice graph, could we say that there is some absurd relationship between the number of pirates and oil consumption? I don't think so.


Your kidding right?... and you insulted me?
This is a standard fallacious argument based upon false logic and assumptions which is commonly referred to as “Confusing Correlation And Causation”…Einstein look it up.


Originally posted by Simon666
Another ridiculous claim is a “security umbrella” effect and an “innovation diffusion” effect, the notion that US troops in German, Japan or elsewhere is necessary for "stability" for investors is based on nothing. There has been no instability in Germany or Japan, and US troops have nothing to do with that, the political system and inherent stability of those countries themselves has. Same goes with the "innovative diffusion" effect. Anyone who isn't brainwashed by rightwing rethoric can see right through it.


Again your opinion, nothing more (actually less), but…


Originally posted by Simon666
There has been no instability in Germany or Japan, and US troops have nothing to do with that, the political system and inherent stability of those countries themselves has.


Umm…just why were are there US and NATO bases in Europe…please explain to a simpleton.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   


Umm…just why were are there US and NATO bases in Europe…please explain to a simpleton.



Do you mean why were there bases in the first place or why are there bases still?

Why were there bases to begin with-

First reason would be after being defeated in WW2 there was a need to keep troops in the area in order to keep the germans from rebuilding and starting up again.
Then after awhile the focus was shifted to defend against a possible Russian invasion.

I think they are there now because it makes it much easier to support operations when you are closer to where those operations are. A great number of casualties go through the hospitals in Germany, many times those wounded soldiers are evacuated and into a top notch hospital the same day they are wounded. Also having bases in Europe makes it easier for our troops to train with troops from various other countries so that if the need arrises they can act together more effectively.







Actually, it's not that simple. I'd bet on Stalin.


If that happened Europe would be speaking Russian.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
their military is WHITE FLAGS!!




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join