[rampant]

http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...896573,00.html



You got to be ****ing kidding me.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally posted by rampant:


You got to be ****ing kidding me.

Me thinks.

[Millennium]

Hmm... So the US, by taking its armies out of Germany, is somehow kicking the dictatorship up a notch?

Seems to me like the opposite. If they don't want our help anymore, then I see no reason not to oblige them. Indeed, if only we did this in other nations also. Germany is not our enemy, so what business do we have stationing troops there anyway?

Once again, kindly make up your mind. Do you want us to be the world's policeman, or do you want us to mind our own business? I'd be perfectly happy with either solution, but make up your mind and be consistent about it.

[rampant]

No, because we're trying to "punish their treachery".

It seems to me that Bush is attempting to make every country in the world hate us, until we have nobody left. What happened to the foreign policy he touted in the primaries?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Hmm... So the US, by taking its armies out of Germany, is somehow kicking the dictatorship up a notch?

Seems to me like the opposite. If they don't want our help anymore, then I see no reason not to oblige them. Indeed, if only we did this in other nations also. Germany is not our enemy, so what business do we have stationing troops there anyway?

Once again, kindly make up your mind. Do you want us to be the world's policeman, or do you want us to mind our own business? I'd be perfectly happy with either solution, but make up your mind and be consistent about it.

I think you're confusing an already confused issue.
The point isn't being or not being the world's policeman, the point is retaliation for disagreement. "taking the ball and going home"
That's being the world's toddler instead of the world's policeman.

however, I take this report with a grain of salt since it doesn't delineate "sources" enough to make it completely credible.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by rampant:
No, because we're trying to "punish their treachery".

It seems to me that Bush is attempting to make every country in the world hate us, until we have nobody left. What happened to the foreign policy he touted in the primaries?

actually, this IS consistant. He is and has always been an isolationist. Only now its becoming self-fulfilled prophecy.

[Saul Goode]

I don't buy it, but if it is true I support it 100%. Germany has always got a bug up their ass, why should we continue to help them?

[Zimphire]

Well it's a good thing only a few countries hate (jealous) the US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Canada withdrew its army from Germany about a decade ago. Was Canada punishing Germany?

The US keeps a little over two divisions in Germany as well as some Air Force units. The other 200,000 troops who used to be there have already been withdrawn. Most of the 70,000 or so forces that are left are stationed in rural parts of Bavaria, Hessen, and Rheinland Pfalz. If the troops leave, it will be rough for a handful of small towns. But it is hardly going to "punish" a country with an economy as large as Germany's.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
I don't buy it, but if it is true I support it 100%. Germany has always got a bug up their ass, why should we continue to help them?

Because this is the US strong arming people to agree with them, maybe? "Do this, or we're going to hurt you."

[rampant]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well it's a good thing only a few countries hate (jealous) the US.

Please, if you don't contribute, we'll just have to assume that you have nothing worth saying.

[OldManMac]

I'm sure Rumsfeld would love to do move American forces out of Germany, but it isn't quite that simple. This is diplomatic posturing, and, IMHO, nothing much will come of this. There are treaties between the two countries, and other factors involved. The economic damage would be felt on both sides; there are a lot of German companies in America that employ U.S. citizens. Hopefuly, smarter heads will prevail over Rumsfeld's!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by rampant:
Nope.

Oh gee, how can I argue with that?

[edit] edited after rampant edited the first reply

Originally posted by rampant:
Please, if you don't contribute, we'll just have to assume that you have nothing worth saying.

I believe I did contribute. Just because you didn't like what I said, doesn't mean I wasn't contributing.

[7Macfreak]

Originally posted by rampant:
Because this is the US strong arming people to agree with them, maybe? "Do this, or we're going to hurt you."

George Bush the First on the eve of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: "The American way of life is not negotiable."

for consistency.

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by rampant:
Because this is the US strong arming people to agree with them, maybe? "Do this, or we're going to hurt you."

It's more like: "you keep pissing on my shoes so I'm leaving."

[Cooter]

Originally posted by rampant:
Because this is the US strong arming people to agree with them, maybe? "Do this, or we're going to hurt you."

....LOL!!!! In a strong arm tactic, the US WITHDRAWS ITS TROOPS OCCUPYING GERMANY SINCE THEIR CONQUERING IN WWII.

Wow, I wonder if Bush will try some strong arm tactics with me and reduce my taxes by not forcing me to pay for the German people's defense 4,000 miles away from home. Lessee, 70,000 troops, several bases...thats gotta save a few billion.

DAMN IMPERIALIST AMERICANS!!!! How dare they remove their troops from a foreign country!

ROTLFMAO!!!! The absolute irony of it all.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
There are treaties between the two countries,

The treaties wouldn't be an impediment. Germany can't keep US forces in Germany against our will and other countries have withdrawn all, or substantially all, of their forces from Germany. Examples include the UK, and Canada.

Withdrawing troops is not the same as abrogating the North Atlantic Treaty. Maybe that is the source of your confusion? The effect might do something similar, however. NATO probably would wither away if US troops weren't there any more. But so what? The Warsaw Pact is gone. Why are we still paying for NATO? It's a total anachronism.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Cooter:
....LOL!!!! In a strong arm tactic, the US WITHDRAWS ITS TROOPS OCCUPYING GERMANY SINCE THEIR CONQUERING IN WWII.

Wow, I wonder if Bush will try some strong arm tactics with me and reduce my taxes by not forcing me to pay for the German people's defense 4,000 miles away from home. Lessee, 70,000 troops, several bases...thats gotta save a few billion.

DAMN IMPERIALIST AMERICANS!!!! How dare they remove their troops from a foreign country!

ROTLFMAO!!!! The absolute irony of it all.

Read the article, withdrawing troops is the smallest portion of it.

LOFL LOLLERBLADESZ!

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by rampant:
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...896573,00.html



You got to be ****ing kidding me.

Please, this is blowing that report so far out of proportion. I read a few articles about this last week when it came out. Rumsfeld hired this guy a LONG time ago (as in before 9/11 I believe) just to reevaluate troop deployments.

Apparently, and this seems intuitively correct, the military is constantly reevaluating troop positions, particularly in Europe since the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia is a very special friend of NATO.

The report doesn't even say that there are any political motives (of course it doesn't). What it does say though is that the forces will be drastically reduced IF (I repeat IF) the plan is implemented which has not been decided at all.

The plan is to have more mobile troops all over the place so that they can be deployed without spending so much money like we are in Iraq now (just to get them there).

Besides, if Germany has a say about what our troops in that area can do and they don't agree with us as much, it might be useful to move the troops somewhere else.

[docbud]

I'm curious about this.

I wasn't aware that Rumsfeld could make such a decision on his own; nor had the authority to decide what bases to open or shut down. I was under the impression Congress decided those things (i.e., their committees lately of closing down state-side bases). Surely Rumsfeld can't have that kind of power to decide such things. Or does he?

I had heard that Rumsfeld had allegedly threatened that the bases could be shut down and troops taken out (something which many Germans have wanted for years).

I don't like the "unnamed sources".
doc

[Cooter]

Originally posted by rampant:
Read the article, withdrawing troops is the smallest portion of it.

LOFL LOLLERBLADESZ!

....amn, I think your irony sensors are fux0red. If the Germans hate America's bravado so much wouldn't they WANT our troops to be gone?

If hey are so scared of our Cowboy attitude wouldn't they be scared that we have 70,000 troops stationed within their borders? Isn't it like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, if you actually buy the **** they're peddling?

Its all window dressing. The real reasons that Germany doens't want us in there is sitting in hardened bunkers as evidence of their under the table oil deals.

[NeoMac]

If the German's believe this is retaliation, it's a clear sign they reallise their actions are problematic enough that such a move is concievable. In other words, it's guilt.

But this has nothing to do with Germany's recent actions. Dozens of U.S. bases are being closed in the US this year alone. It's a huge political battle in Congress this year. The military has been downsizing for the past decade.

Practically speaking, the troops are no longer needed in Germany. The U.S. troops were there to defend Germany for the last 45 years from the Soviet bloc.

Obviously, there is no longer a need to defend Germany.

Logistically, those troops are too far away from U.S. military interests. Keeping them in Germany is an unnecessary logistical burden.

My personal view point on this:
The U.S. military's force structure is way out of date. The U.S. needs to bring 90% of it's troops back to the U.S. To maintain power projection, they need to replace the current fleet of slow transports, with a fleet of the new prototype trimaran ships.

These new ships travel at 40kt compared to 12kts for the current fleet. With this ability, several army divisions can be permanently loaded in U.S. ports on these trimarans. When a conflict arises, these trimarans would be able to reach any point on Earth in only a few days. The design of these ships allows the contents to simply roll-off straight on the beach in full combat mode. It's pretty impressive. Coupled with the Navy carriers, the U.S. military could revolutionize power projection.

There is just no excuse for the current 6-month deployment times. It's rediculous.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by docbud:
I'm curious about this.

I wasn't aware that Rumsfeld could make such a decision on his own; nor had the authority to decide what bases to open or shut down.

He can, or at least the President can. The president can move troops where he thinks he needs them. The bases in Germany aren't like bases in the US. They aren't permanent and they aren't owned by the US. That means they can be closed at any time. Actually, they are just vacated, it is up to the local government to decide what to do then.

Many US bases in Germany have already been closed. For example, my old Kaserne in Bad Kreuznach was closed down a couple of years ago. Before that, Fulda, Berlin, Wildflecken, Bad Tolz, Frankfurt, and many others (I can't think of all the names off hand) were closed down. That isn't something that involves Congress. Remember, we have drawn down our European presence by about 3/4 since the end of the Cold War.

Congress gets involved with stateside bases mainly because it is such a political hot potato for politicians where the bases are lcated. They usually send it to a commission because otherwise there would never be a decision.

But anyway, I first heard this issue was being discussed on Capitol Hill. Whether that is independent of what Rumsfeld is doing or not I don't know.

[glideslope]

Looks good to me!!!!

Ride Um Cowboys!!!!!!

Sorry, I know the "Cowboy" part was a litttle over the top, but it felt good.

p.s.

Looks like NATO put France in the corner with the cap on tonight. Even Germany finally realized the futility of their flawed logic.

Oh yes, almost forgot, that other nation with a B at the front also?

Let's all march in protest!!

ROFLOL!!

[theolein]

This is what I predicted a while ago, and it's happening. A major rift between Europe and the US. However Rumsfeld is a loudmouth dumbfukk and is in fact so much of a loudmouth dumbfukk that he would cut of his pr1ck to spite his wife. You people have this marvelous idea that the US has been propping up the German economy with the presence of these soldiers. Take a good long read about the first Gulf War. Try and find some financial reporting on who PAID for the whole thing: Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia paid for 90% of that little party. Considering that exclusive parties like that in the Gulf don't come cheaply, take a second think about why Rumfukk is really so p1ssed that Germany is not ready to pay for his boozing in the Gulf any more. Rumfukk couldn't give a flying fukk whether the Germans (They were Nazi's once so they must still be that somehow, I saw it in a movie once) fight or not. Considering that Rumfukk and co haven't even budgeted in their next little Gulf soiree, they musta been thinking that all the "allies" (read: other dumfukks who pay for your right to party) would bankroll the next one.

Would p1ss me off too, come to think of it. I always apreciate free beer.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Millennium:
... Do you want us to be the world's policeman, or do you want us to mind our own business?...

If the options are reduced to those two, then please, go and mind your own business.

If, however, the policeman is realistic enough to understand that he's not making the law, but only enforcing it, it might be another story. Petty revenge (playing judge) does NOT fit in this other story...

[DeathMan]

Is it just me or is this such a completely biased article, written soley to get people reading it, and creating controversy? Its about as robust as a black and white tabloid. Not even the classy color ones. Black and white material.

US to punish German 'treachery'

What kind of a headline is this?

Where are the details?

one source told The Observer last week.

Another Pentagon source said

One diplomatic source said

This is journalism?

How about an analogy:

If you're helping someone pay for their school because you think they could be and asset, and you think they will become someone you would someday like to work with, how long after they change their major, and start going a different direction before you stop sending them money.

The US is doing its part, and there is no reason why troops in Prague can't defend Germany, and keep its obligation with NATO.

The article acts like we owe Germany something. We don't. Some Germans would prefer to run our country for us. As we know that's not going to happen, why not let them run their own country, and we can take our business to countries who are more supportive of what we're doing.

I don't like what Iraq is doing, and I don't like how unorganized the UN seems right now. I think this whole thing will cause some serious reorganization within the UN, and hopefully that will be a good thing. As it is now, I don't think the average person has very much trust in the UN's ability to manage this planet. I know I don't.

[docbud]

SimeyTheLimey

Thanks for the explanation. And I'm under the impression that the President decides it. Not solely the secretary of defense (which some are claiming).
doc

[The Oracle]

Our analysis--that this is some kind of punishment for Germany--is a slight overreaction.

United States' troop reductions in Western Europe are necessary and long overdue. It is an unfortunate coincidence that they come at a time of strained US-Germany relations. However, the reductions have been 'on the backburner' for some time, and are necessary as the US faces changing conventional-forces threats--threats that do not originate in Europe or Russia.

These troops have better uses domestically in potential border security supplements, stationing them in Eastern Europe to bolster NATO's presence, or deactivating them to save costs in personnel and exhorbitant facilities costs.

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by docbud:
And I'm under the impression that the President decides it. Not solely the secretary of defense (which some are claiming).
doc

The SecDef (secretary of defense) has full (though not final) authority to move, redirect, deploy, or redeploy United States military forces. This is almost always done under direct or general orders from the President. Rumsfeld wouldn't do this on his own--such a major (though certainly anticipated and overdue) change would certainly require the approval of the President.

[The Oracle]

Let's remember: the Secretary of Defense is the second-in-command of the US military, not some lowly 2LT making hot-shot moves without complete information or approval.

[alien]

Well, according to a Norwegian newspaper, a Pentagon spokesperson has denied the reports of pulling out all the troops:

"Germany is our allied from a long time ago. Sometimes our allies will disagree over an issue. That doesn't mean they can't be our allied anymore."

(Not the original words, as I translated it back from Norwegian.)

[docbud]

I agree "The Oracle"

So why is Rumsfeld being blamed for doing this on his own?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by docbud:
I agree "The Oracle"

So why is Rumsfeld being blamed for doing this on his own?

Delegation of authority. Else you'd blame the President for *everything*.

[undotwa]

This probably has nothing to do with the current political situation on Iraq.

These troops were positioned during the Cold War to help protect Germany against Soviet Russia.

There is no longer that threat, and Germany can manage itself it's domestic issues. They aren't the world's most deprived country economically

It just makes sense to remove troops, because it's a big waste of money to keep them there. The Cold War is over, the US is now focusing more on other areas of the world, including but limited to, the Middle East.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by docbud:
I agree "The Oracle"

So why is Rumsfeld being blamed for doing this on his own?

He's the ogre de jour in some sectors of the European press. One of the people I heard talking about this on Capitol Hill was John McCain. But McCain isn't hated the way Rumsfeld is, so Rumsfeld gets the vitriol. Really, the extent to which these geopolitical issues are getting reduced to cartoonish ad hominem attacks is quite pathetic.

To think I used to subscribe to The Observer!

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think you're confusing an already confused issue.
The point isn't being or not being the world's policeman, the point is retaliation for disagreement. "taking the ball and going home"
That's being the world's toddler instead of the world's policeman.

however, I take this report with a grain of salt since it doesn't delineate "sources" enough to make it completely credible.

Indeed.

[spacefreak]

I'd love to reply, but my point of view (and 2 others) is facing a quarantine here.

"the three(ish) people who are pro-war and keep on posting about it (ie Atef, Spacefreak and Zimphire)" is how the request to the mods was made.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=146483

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point isn't being or not being the world's policeman, the point is retaliation for disagreement. "taking the ball and going home"

So... um... what would you suggest they do?

One, they're hardly "taking the ball". Germany has no real enemies, and the Cold War has been over for more than a decade; they haven't needed the U.S. military there for a long time.

So, let's see. here. We don't agree with Germany. We're not allowed to leave. We're not allowed, apparently, to argue. So our other options are to either agree with them, or act like we agree with them even though we don't. Who is being the dictator here?

I'm sorry, but if Germany has a right to its own opinion, then so does the U.S., and neither one has any right to boss the other around. If we don't want to keep our troops in there then they have no legal right to order us to stay, and since there's no one they need protection from there's no moral obligation to stay either. This talk of "punishment" is frankly suspect, because aside from a few consumers who will no longer be participating in the German economy, there is no real impact. Never mind that unless I'm mistaken the soldiers pay taxes to the US rather than to Germany anyway, so indeed, a drain on the German economy is being taken away. I just don't see how this is going to hurt them. What is this metaphorical "ball" we're "taking"?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So... um... what would you suggest they do?

One, they're hardly "taking the ball". Germany has no real enemies, and the Cold War has been over for more than a decade; they haven't needed the U.S. military there for a long time.

So, let's see. here. We don't agree with Germany. We're not allowed to leave. We're not allowed, apparently, to argue. So our other options are to either agree with them, or act like we agree with them even though we don't. Who is being the dictator here?

I'm sorry, but if Germany has a right to its own opinion, then so does the U.S., and neither one has any right to boss the other around. If we don't want to keep our troops in there then they have no legal right to order us to stay, and since there's no one they need protection from there's no moral obligation to stay either. This talk of "punishment" is frankly suspect, because aside from a few consumers who will no longer be participating in the German economy, there is no real impact. Never mind that unless I'm mistaken the soldiers pay taxes to the US rather than to Germany anyway, so indeed, a drain on the German economy is being taken away. I just don't see how this is going to hurt them. What is this metaphorical "ball" we're "taking"?

Hey, who said you aren't allowed to leave? Who is trying to order you to stay? (WTF is "you", the US Military, Millenium, 'NSync?) No one is stopping the US taking their troops and leaving. Just don't forget to take Donald Rumfukk with you when you go.

[NeoMac]

Yup, there's going to be a lot of unemployed German hookers.

[Ver de Terre]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He's the ogre de jour in some sectors of the European press. One of the people I heard talking about this on Capitol Hill was John McCain. But McCain isn't hated the way Rumsfeld is, so Rumsfeld gets the vitriol. Really, the extent to which these geopolitical issues are getting reduced to cartoonish ad hominem attacks is quite pathetic.

To think I used to subscribe to The Observer!

The geopolitical rhetoric was reduced to cartoonish no later (and probably quite a bit earlier) than when "axis of hatred" was changed to "axis of evil." Since then, we've heard nothing but disingenuousness from officials on either side of the debates.

Seems to me that people feel they must choose between being right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons.

[jcadam]

I doubt any of this is true, else I would have heard something through 'official' channels by now (I would hope). Unless higher HQ is doing its usual 'wait until the last minute and then toss this giant nutroll down the chain of command' thing again.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by jcadam:
I doubt any of this is true, else I would have heard something through 'official' channels by now (I would hope). Unless higher HQ is doing its usual 'wait until the last minute and then toss this giant nutroll down the chain of command' thing again.

I have some first hand experience with this during drawdown. Usually, the troops get about 6 months notice, with the rumors beginning a few months before that. The weird thing is that until the word is official, everything continues as normal. When I was in Germany, my brigade got orders to pack up and move to Ft. Lewis. There were people in the brigade who had just arrived with three year orders. They were pissed!

On the other hand, the same thing happened when I was at Ft. Polk. I met nobody who was unhappy to be leaving there!

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by NeoMac:
Yup, there's going to be a lot of unemployed German hookers.

Hehe, good one. But the days of the Deutsche Mark <-> Dollar bound exchange rate of 4:1 is long but gone. So is the Deutsche Mark itself.

PB.

[deekay1]

see ya, - and i wouldn't wanna be ya! (oh, and please don't forget to take "walmart" with you)!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
see ya, - and i wouldn't wanna be ya! (oh, and please don't forget to take "walmart" with you)!

Only if you take those disgusting Kinder Eggs back. Oh, and Aldi too.

[The Mick]

Go ahead and pull the troops out and close the bases. Sounds good to me, and apparently it sound good to many europeans as well. As others have said, we don't need to guard against the former USSR invading the rest of europe and starting WWIII. Our military should focus on protecting my arse, not Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Do it for the right reasons and I'm all for it, just don't do it as retaliation for diagreements over foreign policy, that's childish.

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Go ahead and pull the troops out and close the bases. Sounds good to me, and apparently it sound good to many europeans as well. As others have said, we don't need to guard against the former USSR invading the rest of europe and starting WWIII. Our military should focus on protecting my arse, not Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Do it for the right reasons and I'm all for it, just don't do it as retaliation for diagreements over foreign policy, that's childish.

large numbers of US troops in Europe are not needed. Getting many of them out of there should be an urgent priority.

However, Japan is still an important staging ground and strategic position for US forces in protecting Taiwan and deterring North Korean aggression. A reduction of personnel in Japan could probably be done, but not to any great extent.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Only if you take those disgusting Kinder Eggs back. Oh, and Aldi too.

Simey, mate. "Aldi" rocks. Very drinkable bottle of Rioja for about $2.50. Don't knock it

Seriously now. The US has every right to decide where and how to deploy it's troops. If that means that its no longer deemed necessary to deploy them in Germany that is fine - nothing is owed after all. The choice of language is unfortunate, creating wounds that will take longer to heal than is desirable.

Rumsfield's family is German. From Bremen, the family Rumsfeld originates. I think he's just overcompensating. Don't fret. In four years Germany will have a different government. So, with any luck, will the US. And, hopefully, all this playground posturing, on both sides, will just be a bad dream.