Can we all agree that Germany no longer needs U.S. Occupation?

[BulletProof]

You sound like Obama ---- if we leave Russia alone, they won't attack Ukraine. Wait? What? They took Crimea?

US troops in Germany helped with Crimea how? And, why should I care about Crimea?

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that Germany can mount a cogent defense against Russia?

Measured by military spending dollars, Germany could stand alone against Russia, unless Russia pulled their troops out of Crimea and other places.

Yes, Russia has the manpower, but Germany has the defender's advantage.

Besides, I haven't seen any Russian threats against Germany.

 

[dblack]

The question is really: Can we all agree that the US doesn't need to have a dominant military presence in every corner of the globe?

Why not? You think the usa it's solders are murdering and raping and pillaging?

???

 

[Spare_change]

You sound like Obama ---- if we leave Russia alone, they won't attack Ukraine. Wait? What? They took Crimea?

US troops in Germany helped with Crimea how? And, why should I care about Crimea?

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that Germany can mount a cogent defense against Russia?

Measured by military spending dollars, Germany could stand alone against Russia, unless Russia pulled their troops out of Crimea and other places.

Yes, Russia has the manpower, but Germany has the defender's advantage.

Besides, I haven't seen any Russian threats against Germany.

Seriously? You really mean this?

Let me see if I can put this in small words - it is obvious to me that you have no military expertise whatsoever.

Let's accept your scenario - we pull out of Germany and all of Europe.

Germany has 60 thousand soldiers, and second hand weaponry that we have given/sold to them. You don't REALLY think we would give our good stuff to a potential future enemy, do you?

So - 60 thousand soldiers in Germany ... marginally armed.

Currently - today - Russia has over 150,000 troops within a two day drive of German borders. In addition, 40% of its air force capability is within 3 hours flight time. Current estimates are that Russia would overrun Germany in three days or less.

During the Cold War, the estimate was that it would take Russia two-three weeks to capture Germany - WITH US THERE !!! Then, because of the expenditure of resources, the Russian army would have to stop and replenish. It would be during that time that we would be able to deploy sufficient resources to 1) halt their current advance, and 2) drive them back into Russia.

"Defender's advantage", my ass.

No current Russian threats against Germany --- do you suppose that's because we have 35,000 troops stationed in Germany? Do you suppose that's because Germany is a member of NATO, and Russia knows that WE will commit our resources to protect Germany?

C'mon ---- wake up and smell the coffee. We're there because we need to be. (Pssst --- there are no Russian troops in Crimea. Just ask Putin)

 

[BulletProof]

Currently - today - Russia has over 150,000 troops within a two day drive of German borders. In addition, 40% of its air force capability is within 3 hours flight time. Current estimates are that Russia would overrun Germany in three days or less.

To me, you're just a crazy psychopath. Back when McCain was running for president, you were probably insisting that Iran was just days away from nuking someone. Lucky for the world, McCain lost and so so we avoided a war with Iran. And, to this day, Iran still has no nuclear weapons program, let alone being days away from nuking someone, you fking murderous nutjob.

If Germany couldn't resist a Russian attack, especially with defenders great advantage, what the fk is Germany doing with their military spending, which exceeds that of Russia when it comes to what Germany and Russia can apply to a war between the two? Then there's the European continent full of German allies with some of the strongest militarizes in thew world.

Listen fckwad, Russia has shown no interest in attacking Germany nor do they have any reason to attack Germany. The situation is nothing like Crimea.

Shithead, the best way to avoid war with Russia isn't an arms race and constant provocation. It's to turn them into a trading partner.

 

[cnm]

I bet you don't know the casualties your allies, NATO and others, have taken for you in Afghanistan, while you bleat they're not meeting any cost.

No near as many (even per capita) as the US ...
And as far as paying the costs ... European NATO countries just need to start paying the money they agreed to pay NATO ...
Or shut the **** up until we ask you a question ...

.

So you don't know. As expected from an ungrateful ally.

No money is paid to NATO that I'm aware of, what are you talking about?

 

[BlackSand]

So you don't know. As expected from an ungrateful ally.

No money is paid to NATO that I'm aware of, what are you talking about?

Hey nit-wit ... What you are unaware of, doesn't mean I don't know.
Instead of making silly comments, asking me questions and telling me what you are unaware of ...
Encourage the other countries in NATO to supply the money they agreed to ...

Then shut the **** up because I didn't ask you any questions ...


As you can see in the graph below France, Turkey, Germany, Italy and Canada ...
Are behind such world superpowers as Estonia in fulfilling their financial obligations to NATO.

.

 

[Redfish]

If the Germans want us there to "protect" them from Russia, Iran, etc. Then the Germans should pay 100% of the cost of maintaining our bases in their country. If we are to be the world's police force, then we should be paid for that service. If not, bring our people home.

That's not why we're there ... frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Germany.

not the total reason, but certainly part of it, and you know it.

Actually, it's not even a consideration ... and I DO know it. In fact, I can testify that the Pentagon has several scenarios in which they intentionally sacrifice Germany for a better tactical situation.

that is a basic of military strategy, always has been. But you continue to miss the point, either through naivete or ignorance.

 

[thanatos144]

If the Germans want us there to "protect" them from Russia, Iran, etc. Then the Germans should pay 100% of the cost of maintaining our bases in their country. If we are to be the world's police force, then we should be paid for that service. If not, bring our people home.

That's not why we're there ... frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Germany.

not the total reason, but certainly part of it, and you know it.

Actually, it's not even a consideration ... and I DO know it. In fact, I can testify that the Pentagon has several scenarios in which they intentionally sacrifice Germany for a better tactical situation.

that is a basic of military strategy, always has been. But you continue to miss the point, either through naivete or ignorance.

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

 

[Redfish]

If the Germans want us there to "protect" them from Russia, Iran, etc. Then the Germans should pay 100% of the cost of maintaining our bases in their country. If we are to be the world's police force, then we should be paid for that service. If not, bring our people home.

That's not why we're there ... frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Germany.

not the total reason, but certainly part of it, and you know it.

Actually, it's not even a consideration ... and I DO know it. In fact, I can testify that the Pentagon has several scenarios in which they intentionally sacrifice Germany for a better tactical situation.

that is a basic of military strategy, always has been. But you continue to miss the point, either through naivete or ignorance.

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

I think you are confused, you and I are on the same page.

 

[Redfish]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

^^^ left wing talking point with no basis in fact.

 

[thanatos144]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

It isnt wasteful. It is cheap for the security we get from it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

It isnt wasteful. It is cheap for the security we get from it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

Riiiight....

 

[thanatos144]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

It isnt wasteful. It is cheap for the security we get from it.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

Riiiight....

Yep we get a forward operating base witha top notch hospital and we get subsidized slightly by the home country as well as good pr . as well as a deterent for Russia and Germany itself from doing something to stupid. Damn shame obama couldnt use it properly

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Can we all agree that Germany no longer needs U.S. Occupation?

I don't know. Let's ask Russia.

 

[BulletProof]

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

"US interests" is the propaganda term for having US troops all over the world. It's against US interests to be in the middle-east. Maybe at one time it was in the US interest to have troops in some places of the world, but I think that time has passed. The EU can handle their own self-defense, without us. Africa is, and will always be, a basket case.

 

[thanatos144]

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

"US interests" is the propaganda term for having US troops all over the world. It's against US interests to be in the middle-east. Maybe at one time it was in the US interest to have troops in some places of the world, but I think that time has passed. The EU can handle their own self-defense, without us. Africa is, and will always be, a basket case.

Thinking like this is what allows world wars

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Spare_change]

Currently - today - Russia has over 150,000 troops within a two day drive of German borders. In addition, 40% of its air force capability is within 3 hours flight time. Current estimates are that Russia would overrun Germany in three days or less.

To me, you're just a crazy psychopath. Back when McCain was running for president, you were probably insisting that Iran was just days away from nuking someone. Lucky for the world, McCain lost and so so we avoided a war with Iran. And, to this day, Iran still has no nuclear weapons program, let alone being days away from nuking someone, you fking murderous nutjob.

If Germany couldn't resist a Russian attack, especially with defenders great advantage, what the fk is Germany doing with their military spending, which exceeds that of Russia when it comes to what Germany and Russia can apply to a war between the two? Then there's the European continent full of German allies with some of the strongest militarizes in thew world.

Listen fckwad, Russia has shown no interest in attacking Germany nor do they have any reason to attack Germany. The situation is nothing like Crimea.

Shithead, the best way to avoid war with Russia isn't an arms race and constant provocation. It's to turn them into a trading partner.

Are you done with the childish name calling .... you use it to deflect from the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Your comments are so incredibly naive and ignorant, they beggar response.

It's probably a good thing that I don't resort to that type of sophomoric response, because if I did, I probably would tell you what an imbecilic little piss ant you are, what a complete asshole you have proven yourself to be (if you were devoid of those gargantuan hemorrhoids you call ears, you'd be a perfect asshole), and what an a syphilitic little piece of shit you really are.

Fortunately, I don't do that kind of stuff ... so you're safe. I'll just leave it to you to continue to demonstrate your childish knowledge, lack of logic, and penchant for sophomoric toilet humor.

 

[Spare_change]

Why is it you fear a strong US presence in the world? Do you honestly think if we hide from the world all tye bad people will disappear? Or Do you think it is the USA that are the bad people?

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

You're wrong .... simple as that. There's no way to sugarcoat it, no way to dress it up, no way to put lipstick on it.

You simply don't know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Spare_change]

Nothing fearful about it. It's just stupid and wasteful. There's no reason US taxpayers should be funding the "world police". We're not sending our troops all over the world in order to protect our country. We're protecting the "interests" of multinational corporations in other countries. **** that.

"US interests" is the propaganda term for having US troops all over the world. It's against US interests to be in the middle-east. Maybe at one time it was in the US interest to have troops in some places of the world, but I think that time has passed. The EU can handle their own self-defense, without us. Africa is, and will always be, a basket case.

What an incredibly stupid, disingenuous, and ignorant comment.

The depth of your stupidity is, simply, unfathomable.