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

[Spare_change]

It seems US troops are in most of the countries of the world. We need to get them out. We need to stop foreign aid. We need to stop giving welfare to immigrants. So many ways we should save money and otherwise stop hurting ourselves.

Yeah - save money!!!! That's what it's all about.

Don't worry about tactical or strategic considerations. Don't worry about the increased cost, in blood and treasure, from fighting the enemy in Charleston, SC Roanoke, VA , San Francisco, International Falls, MN, Phoenix, or Dallas.

Only thing that matters is money ....

 

[Spare_change]

I spent the summer of 1967 on the Fluda Gap. Two observations:

The Germans both hated us and loved us at the same time.

Most young German girls were short miniskirts and were cute as hell.

fulda gap, holy ****.

Wow? Did they fill it in?

Let me guess ... they filled it with leftover sand from Kuwait, right?

 

[eagle1462010]

While I agree that other countries in NATO need to step up and do their share, the U.S. bases in Germany are KEY STRATEGIC BASES for the United States..........

And that in a nut shell is in the best interest of the United States. Even at the cost of having to baby sit other Nations who fail to do their part in the defense of NATO.

If we weren't over there, we wouldn't need that base.

and really, you think they wouldn't make room for us if they needed us?

Isolationism policy doesn't work. Neither does endless wars in the sandy region of the world.

I would remind you that this is not the cold war era. With the weapons and capabilities of today's militaries there is no time like there was in WWII.

We can get hit quickly with air power almost anywhere in the world now. What you have there should the worst ever happen have to be there and ready up front.

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

lol, what a sleuth you are.. during the cold war germany was ground zero. in case of ww3 germany would have been "sacrificed". ask the moron above who allegedly slothed around the Fluda Gap. why would this be different now, lol

 

[Spare_change]

While I agree that other countries in NATO need to step up and do their share, the U.S. bases in Germany are KEY STRATEGIC BASES for the United States..........

And that in a nut shell is in the best interest of the United States. Even at the cost of having to baby sit other Nations who fail to do their part in the defense of NATO.

If we weren't over there, we wouldn't need that base.

and really, you think they wouldn't make room for us if they needed us?

Isolationism policy doesn't work. Neither does endless wars in the sandy region of the world.

I would remind you that this is not the cold war era. With the weapons and capabilities of today's militaries there is no time like there was in WWII.

We can get hit quickly with air power almost anywhere in the world now. What you have there should the worst ever happen have to be there and ready up front.

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

That's not true ... and that ISN'T a matter of opinion.

I spent 3 years in the Planning section at the Pentagon (I was in the Air Force) On our best day, we couldn't deploy aircraft in that kind of time frame ... and now, given the impact of sequester, we can't even find a half dozen planes that are operational to deploy.

 

[BulletProof]

It seems US troops are in most of the countries of the world. We need to get them out. We need to stop foreign aid. We need to stop giving welfare to immigrants. So many ways we should save money and otherwise stop hurting ourselves.

Yeah - save money!!!! That's what it's all about.

Don't worry about tactical or strategic considerations. Don't worry about the increased cost, in blood and treasure, from fighting the enemy in Charleston, SC Roanoke, VA , San Francisco, International Falls, MN, Phoenix, or Dallas.

Only thing that matters is money ....

We'd do more than save money. If we "pulled out of the world", not only would we save money, we'd stop making enemies. The shithead thinks 9/11 happened for lack of US meddling in the middle-east, when just the opposite is true. The shithead mutters stupid things about tactical advantage, and whatnot, to rationalize self-destructive foreign policy.

Shitead, the biggest cause of Muslim immigration to America is you shitheads building roads between the US and the middle-east, so to speak. Besides, if you shitheads stopped demanding the US s spread itself across the globe, then you could focus more on restricting immigration to America. But, in truth, a shithead like you is the enemy of God and country.

 

[eagle1462010]

While I agree that other countries in NATO need to step up and do their share, the U.S. bases in Germany are KEY STRATEGIC BASES for the United States..........

And that in a nut shell is in the best interest of the United States. Even at the cost of having to baby sit other Nations who fail to do their part in the defense of NATO.

If we weren't over there, we wouldn't need that base.

and really, you think they wouldn't make room for us if they needed us?

Isolationism policy doesn't work. Neither does endless wars in the sandy region of the world.

I would remind you that this is not the cold war era. With the weapons and capabilities of today's militaries there is no time like there was in WWII.

We can get hit quickly with air power almost anywhere in the world now. What you have there should the worst ever happen have to be there and ready up front.

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

That's not true ... and that ISN'T a matter of opinion.

I spent 3 years in the Planning section at the Pentagon (I was in the Air Force) On our best day, we couldn't deploy aircraft in that kind of time frame ... and now, given the impact of sequester, we can't even find a half dozen planes that are operational to deploy.

You can't expect me to believe all of that............

Tell me the Air Force can't maintain it's capabilities..................I was in the Navy and every dang thing on a carrier could fly at a moments notice........

So.........I doubt you........and hope the hell I'm right.............No dang way that many planes are grounded now.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-...inue-against-daesh-terrorists-in-syria-and-i/

flying missions every day.........have been for years.............

So...........no..........I don't believe you.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

lol, what a sleuth you are.. during the cold war germany was ground zero. in case of ww3 germany would have been "sacrificed". ask the moron above who allegedly slothed around the Fluda Gap. why would this be different now, lol

Germany still is ground zero in any scenario involving Russia. Because we now have additional threats in the Middle East does not mitigate the threat in Germany.Germany does not, and cannot, have the military force to provide viable resistance against an army the size of Russia's.

Pulling troops out of Germany is an idea that has clearly been hatched in the mind of someone who has no concept of the threat model in Europe.

 

[eagle1462010]

last year air power demonstration

United States European Command

straight forward from our forces there..............

Show me proof that they are as degraded as you say.............

 

[cnm]

Meaning, this country subjugates NO ONE.

Yeah, right, you were liberating Iraq. It was obvious.

 

[cnm]

if we are to be the world's police force, then we should be paid for that service.

You are not the world's police force. Police answer to a court. You are the world's Capo.

 

[Spare_change]

If we weren't over there, we wouldn't need that base.

and really, you think they wouldn't make room for us if they needed us?

Isolationism policy doesn't work. Neither does endless wars in the sandy region of the world.

I would remind you that this is not the cold war era. With the weapons and capabilities of today's militaries there is no time like there was in WWII.

We can get hit quickly with air power almost anywhere in the world now. What you have there should the worst ever happen have to be there and ready up front.

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

That's not true ... and that ISN'T a matter of opinion.

I spent 3 years in the Planning section at the Pentagon (I was in the Air Force) On our best day, we couldn't deploy aircraft in that kind of time frame ... and now, given the impact of sequester, we can't even find a half dozen planes that are operational to deploy.

You can't expect me to believe all of that............

Tell me the Air Force can't maintain it's capabilities..................I was in the Navy and every dang thing on a carrier could fly at a moments notice........

So.........I doubt you........and hope the hell I'm right.............No dang way that many planes are grounded now.

Oooh .... naval air power!!!

So, tell me, what is the operating range of planes off a carrier? The common estimate is less than 1,000 miles - and those are one-time strike and return missions. How much payload can those planes put on target, given that flight distance and landing profile? How many heavy bombers can the Navy deploy into Europe on a one-day notice?

Are you suggesting that it is more feasible, more economical to station aircraft carriers off the shores of Europe than it is to retain troops on the ground?

Now - about the Air Force. You realize, of course, that the Air Force currently has fewer aircraft than any time since 1947. You're aware, of course, that the Air Force just announced that they are 1,700 pilots short of the minimum required to remain fully operational status. You're aware, of course, that Air Force planes are, on average, 27 years old. You're aware of course that the first B-52 flew in 1952. That's 66 years ago!!! And, they're still operational!.

You're aware, of course, that on 15 Dec, the US Air Force Chief of Staff briefed the House Armed Services Committee that almost 40% of its aircraft were non-operational due to lack of parts, and that a majority of the remaining 60% had been "yellow tagged" - meaning they had faults that did not prevent them from flying.

You're aware, of course, that Bill Clinton changed the basic military requirement from being capable to conducting two wars simultaneously (think WWII) to conducting one war and one "holding action", and that Barack Obama eliminated the "holding action" proviso, thus further depleting the military resource pool.

So, in answer to your question - no, the Air Force can't maintain its full capabilities. Neither can the Navy - our Navy today is the lowest number of ships since 1917, and half of what it was in 1988. The Navy has 10 aircraft carriers - 7 of which are in service. Put them on a rotation, and you can cover 2, maybe 3, locations? What about North Korea? China?

No - sadly, our military is greatly diminished. We need to rebuild it.

 

[cnm]

And that in a nut shell is in the best interest of the United States. Even at the cost of having to baby sit other Nations who fail to do their part in the defense of NATO.

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.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Seriously. WTF are we still doing in Germany?

For how many decades must Germany atone for the sins of prior generations before it is allowed complete autonomy?

Our military should GET THE **** OUT. (and save us a bunch of money in the process)




Free Germany NOW!!

Sing The Scorpions with me:

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away (dream away)
In the wind of change

I agree 100%. Take them out, put them on the southern border. Two problems solved and lots of money saved.

I thought that would be against the law?

Many people have the same mistaken idea. It is the Posse Comitatus Act that confuses people. It basically states that the US military cannot engage in civilian law enforcement activities. It was never meant to include the border and should not do so as controlling one's borders is one of the most basic uses for a military.

Also, if we stop them from crossing the border then it would not be a LE function, but one of defense. You could allow the BP to deal with the few that get through.

Thank you sir for.the clarification.

 

[thanatos144]

We should leave.

We never should have gone there in the first place.

Our Founders knew the Old world would be at war forever, and told us not to get involved, but the progs needed blood, now we are stuck.

or can we just pack the **** up and leave?

do we have to have ports and bases around the world?
do we have to bleed our economy and sons and daughters for a world that won't make any attempt at actual peace?

**** the old world, let it die in it's ancient rivalries. Just sell them all the weapons and ammo they can carry.

should we also pull out of Japan and Korea and let the Chinese and the crazy NK dictator take those countries? This is not as easy as it seems on the surface.

As a matter of fact, Yes we should.
Just as you said for Germany, If Japan and Korea want our protection then they should pay for 100% of the costs. The US has been way to kind in providing free security for these countries, This is one of the reasons we have a massive deficit.

No!

You can't put a dollar value on human life or even the quality of life.

As a Navy Vet, I spent 2 years in isolated duty. Know what you get for being sent to an Isolated duty posting? More money, you having nothing to spend it on, since there's almost no where to go.

no

**** the world.

Time we learned the lesson our founders taught us and leave it to rot.

I want to agree with you, but the world of 1776 and the world of 2018 are quite different. In 1776 it took months to get from the US to Europe, now it takes 6 hours.

6 hours to move equipment and a batallion of men? In what fantasy world do you live in? Isolation isn't good for the country. Actually it turns out it is very bad for us amd the world.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[whitehall]

U.S. Troops are part of a NATO presence in Germany. Should Germany kick NATO out of the country or do anti-American anarchists want to get rid of American Troops.

 

[Desperado]

Isolation isn't good for the country

How do you know, In the history of the Unite States it has never been our foriegn policy. It is our interventionist policy that has gotten us in trouble for the past 100 years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When was the last time one nation invaded another, other than the US?

It is funny how the Cons on here tell us day in and day out that Russia is not our enemy, yet we have to keep 100,000 troops stationed abroad to keep them from taking over the world.

So, which is it?

 

[Desperado]

U.S. Troops are part of a NATO presence in Germany. Should Germany kick NATO out of the country or do anti-American anarchists want to get rid of American Troops.

NATO is a waste of our time and money, We should get out of NATO post haste