U.S. pulling troops out of Europe

[madape]

US to redeploy 100,000 troops and shut bases
President George Bush will announce tomorrow that the US military will pull up to 100,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the biggest redeployment since the end of the Cold War.

The plan will see a number of US bases in Germany closed down, and troops returned home or redeployed to Eastern Europe.

from Davids Medienkritik (German blog)

But...but... this means job losses in the tens of thousands in Germany!! You can't do this! Germany is broke by all definitions and needs help, not another devastating blow to the job market! We're already struggling to sustain our 6-week-annual vacations and the 35-hour week, not to forget our generous welfare state - we simply can't afford even more job losses! We need US taxpayer dollars to keep our standard of socialism!

Do you know no decency, Sir? I mean, Germany had done so much to support the US fight terrorism in Iraq, like...er...like... - well, that's obvious, anyway. Don't Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka "I am not convinced" Fischer deserve better treatment for their unwavering support, even in difficult times? And didn't the German population always show great sympathy for your decisions to go to war against terrorism?


Think twice about your decision, Mr. President!

Otherwise we might turn to France to guarantee our security in the future. They'd sure be more than willing to risk their soldier's lives to defend Germany.

You sure as hell can bet on that!

all I can say is... sometimes you get what you ask for. Good luck fellas!

[LRB]

Really, at this time I don't see what having troops in Europe accomplishes other than expense.

[dude1394]

Decisions have consequences children.

[Fidel]

Uuuuh I think we are more then capable to defend ourselves.















Plus we could easily build some nukes if we had to. After all the equipement and knowhow that countrys like korea or iran are using in their nuclear programs is of german origin.

We also have some pretty neat special forces like KSK or GSG9 that rank among the best worldwide.

[LRB]

Fidel, we had troops in Europe to protect Europe and US interests from the Soviet threat. Since that is gone, I would agree that Germany and other European countries can and should protect their own borders from the threats that they face. The biggest threat is probably terrorism, and I don't see how having a US base in Germany necesarily accomplishes much against that threat.

[madape]

Shroeder chose a path of isolation and that's what he's gonna get. No more protective US military umbrella for you, Germany. Looks like you'll have to actually build an army capable of defending your own asses. To fund it, you might have to raise taxes even higher than economy choking levels they are at right now.. You probably would need to cut funding for the millions of bums you have on government dole. Needless to say, sacrifices must be made. But if your government doesn't collapse from it's own dead weight, I have every confidence that after ten years of massive milirtary re-industrialization, you might acheive advances that put your military capabilities somewhat on par with the US.... from the 1970s.

If anything happens, you could probably defend yourselves for a few years. But if the unthinkable ever happens and you need our help, don't call us, we'll call you.

The days of an ungrateful Europe sucking off the US military teet are over.

[Max Power]

Fidel is right - the German government does not need the US to protect them anymore. But it will mean a significant hit to the German economy to have the disposable incomes of the US soldiers removed. But Germany decided its own course when it did not back our war on terrorism. It should not expect to have its cake and eat it too.

[Drbio]

Lest we forget that the infacy of military warfare was dominated by the ideas and technology of German scientists. The Germans have a capable defense force. It is widely accepted that the US military is the worlds strongest, but other countries can certainly hold their own. I'd hate for instance to have to face the Chinese, Germans, or some other countries in warfare. It would be costly in many areas.

That said, I am certainly not disappointed to see our troops withdrawn or minimized from the European nations. We should NOT completely evacuate however. The Soviet threat may have been the impetus of our initial presence in other countries, but certainly we benefit from having troops in Europe in many other ways. In addition, the Soviet threat is not what it used to be. The US receives a significant benefit for having our troops stationed around the world.

The economic loss to Germany is justified in this case in my opinion. I am all for placing our overseas resources into those countries who wholeheartedly supported the recent coalition. I see nothing wrong with a reallocation and redeployment of those forces.

One final thought....if we do completely remove our forces from Germany and they were to be attacked, I am pretty confident that (1) Germany would seek our assistance, and (2) that we would gladly give it.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Drbio
One final thought....if we do completely remove our forces from Germany and they were to be attacked, I am pretty confident that (1) Germany would seek our assistance, and (2) that we would gladly give it.

And to be completely fair - if the US was attacked by a country (China as an example), Germany would be among the first to commit troops to our defense. Just because they have reservations about our war against terrorism DOES NOT mean that they would abandon us in a more straightforward conflict.

Unfortunately I cannot say the same for France.

[Drbio]

That was my point Max. I just didn't have it going both ways. mea culpa.

[LRB]

I'm in agreement with Max and Doc. I'm not happy about how Germany treated us recently, but we'd definitely come to their aid as they would ours I believe. I also don't see this as a punishment to Germany, although it may cause some economic hardship on their part. We just don't need to have the same level of military forces in the region to protect our own interests and Germany doesn't need us to protect their interests.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by: madape
Shroeder chose a path of isolation and that's what he's gonna get. No more protective US military umbrella for you, Germany. Looks like you'll have to actually build an army capable of defending your own asses. To fund it, you might have to raise taxes even higher than economy choking levels they are at right now.. You probably would need to cut funding for the millions of bums you have on government dole. Needless to say, sacrifices must be made. But if your government doesn't collapse from it's own dead weight, I have every confidence that after ten years of massive milirtary re-industrialization, you might acheive advances that put your military capabilities somewhat on par with the US.... from the 1970s.

If anything happens, you could probably defend yourselves for a few years. But if the unthinkable ever happens and you need our help, don't call us, we'll call you.

The days of an ungrateful Europe sucking off the US military teet are over.

Well let me see. First, the fact that the US has a higher military budget then all european states combined might have something to do with the US having superior military.

Second I don´t think it´s necessary to spend so much money for the military. The cold war is over (and I`m glad and thankfull the US was there to protect us during that period) and more importantly I think the ara of conventional warfare is mostly over too for countrys like the US or Germany. What you need in todays conflicts are small, highly specialized and highly mobile units. And you also need hightech equipment and weapons. The US definitly has and advantage when it comes to weapon systems of all sorts, mostly because they simply spend much more money for their developement. But Germany doesn´t do so bad in that department either. Some of the weaponsystems and vehicles I posted rank among the most advanced in the world. Like the Leopard tank or the submarine. But why even compare Germany to the US? Does anyone here really think we might ever be engaged in war again?

I think when looking at german troops (or european troops in general) the important question is: can they handle the situations they might be confronted with in the future? In this case I´m thinking more of something like Afghanistan. Here´s where small special forces come into play. And guess what KSK (KommandoSpezialKräfte) troops were and are among the most active forces in the real fight against terror in Afghanistan. Here´s what US military generals think about the german KSK forces:

Link

The link is in german so I`ll translate the captions for you:

"The KSK squad is just awesome"
"They are fighting in the front line" in the hunt for terrorists and somesuch.
"They are very courageous, oftentimes they are better then our own forces and they are battle tested".

So 1970´s up yours. Our communication structures aren´t up to par yet (but are in the process of becoming one of the most modern ones) and we might not have the biggest weapon arsenal in the world but our special forces can take on anyone. I´m really confident that they will be able to protect us against all threats of the modern world. To do so you don`t need a gazillion tanks and millions of soldiers anymore.

And yes I`m a proud german.

Edit: and I´m absolutely in agreement with Max and Doc when it comes to the question of either Germany or the US being attacked that the other country would be among the first to gladly provide any help needed. In fact we did just that (and are still doing it) when you were attacked by terrorists located in Afghanistan. Our governement just didn´t agree that Iraq had anything to do with those attacks (and it probably didn`t) or that Iraq was an emediate threat to the western civilization. Despite those recent woes I think we still have a pretty strong partnership.

[dude1394]

Well, it's time that germany decided on these issues for themselves without mother-hen hovering. It has been quite a dissappointment to have our allies work against us. It has broken a trust and those are hard to get back.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Well, it's time that germany decided on these issues for themselves without mother-hen hovering. It has been quite a dissappointment to have our allies work against us. It has broken a trust and those are hard to get back.

Well it didn´t have anything to do with mother hen-hovering. Actually until 1990 both the BRD and the DDR were the focal point of the cold war. Up until that point there were still troops of the big4 allies in WWII stationed in both parts of Germany. Basicly we weren`t allowed to make any desicions on our own when it came to our security up to this point. We still aren`t a permanent member of world security council (don`t know the exact name in english).

The US as well as the Brits, French and Russians didn`t keep their troops in Germany only to protect us. They were also following their own power interests in a big way. For example the reunification of Germany nearly fell through because of Frances veto.

As for working against you. That´s simply not true, please check your facts. You were attacked by terrorists located in Afghanistan and Germany was among the first countrys to offer support in the following fight against terror. We are still backing you in that fight all over the world. It`s just that our governement and most people here happen to think that the war against Iraq has got nothing to do with that fight. If you go to war with Iraq that is actually your buisiness. They did not attack you, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they didn`t even have weapons of mass destruction (despite all that I was actually not against that war, but that`s a different story IMO, again it´s no part of the war on terror). So I think us not being engaged in that war has got nothing to do with letting you down.

[dude1394]

Fidel... I'm not talking about necessarily sending troops. I and I think that bush can understand internal politics (although being used as a foil for schroeder is no way to win friends and influence people). But....actively working against what we felt were our interests in Iraq was dissapointing. Aligning with france to block our efforts in the UN was dissapointing. And I don't think it will quickly be forgotten.

It's one thing to respectively decline, it's quite another to actively oppose.

[madape]

Germany damaged its relationship with the US in denying help to us in the Iraq war. The rift can be repaired, but only after much effort from the Germans. They have chosen to ally themselves with France in an effort to thwart the US war on terror. In order to smooth relations, they will need to prove that they are with us, not against us.

After fifty years of protecting your country from communism, from tyrants, and genocide, Bush has finally given up trying to promote an American style democracy in Germany. It appears the country is incapable of contributing to the security and prosperity of the world. That's fine. Every country has the right to isolate it's intentions and efforts to it's own people. But just realize that we have other friends in the world that do care about a world outside it's borders. The great trans-atlantic alliance of the 20th century just might be replaced by the great trans-Pacific alliance of the 21st. My advice to Germany is to choose well who your friends are. If you allow yourselves to be lead by the dog collar by France, you might wind up in the garbage bin of history.

[Mavdog]

The position that Germany took in the discussion of an invasion of Iraq has proven to be valid. Their view was to continue with the world's isolation of Iraq with the anticipation that Iraq would be unable to effectively break out of that isolation and threaten other countries. With the facts in front of us it is clear they were correct, Iraq had no military capability, had no WMD and was a paper tiger.

To chastise the German government for being right, for calling for the world to use other means than war, fails in the face of the truth.

[sturm und drang]

The sooner we lose the "They have chosen to ally themselves with France in an effort to thwart the US war on terror" rhetoric, the better.

Germany, like France and countless other allies, chose not to entangle themselves with our war against Iraq. We need look no further than the numerous arrests of terrorists and terror cells within their borders to see that they are a critical ally in the war on terror.

[Fidel]

Sorry madape but that`s just bullshit.

If any country has isolated itself recently it is the US under Bush.

And it also seems you don´t really know much about germany and it´s buisiness relationships and foreign policy. In fact we are respected worldwide as trading and buisiness partners and germany is asked pretty often to arbitrate in political conflicts. We currently have troops stationed in about 15 crisis nations worldwide to provide safety and security and help with the reconstruction. And we also have developement aid volunteers in many other countrys. So Germany is well respected (still not liked though because of past events) all over the world. And if you could lay down your USA glasses for just a second you should easily realise that. The USA is not "the world". And to disagree with the USA about something won`t isolate you in the rest of the world.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The position that Germany took in the discussion of an invasion of Iraq has proven to be valid. Their view was to continue with the world's isolation of Iraq with the anticipation that Iraq would be unable to effectively break out of that isolation and threaten other countries. With the facts in front of us it is clear they were correct, Iraq had no military capability, had no WMD and was a paper tiger.

To chastise the German government for being right, for calling for the world to use other means than war, fails in the face of the truth.

To say that Germany has been proven right, is just flat out wrong. They had the right to choose not to help us and they chose to exercise that right. I'm not really that upset over that. As to the actions where they worked to oppose us versus not supporting us, I am upset. Still it's their choice to make. But to say that they have been proven wrong when Saddam has been outed from power and the beginnings of democracy are being planted in Iraq and we have made sure that Iraq will not be a safe harbor to develop and distribute WMD nor to be used as a haven for unmolested terrorist training and bases. Admitedly this topic is highly subjective in many areas, which is why is if false to say that Germany has been proven right in their decision.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

To say that Germany has been proven right, is just flat out wrong. They had the right to choose not to help us and they chose to exercise that right. I'm not really that upset over that. As to the actions where they worked to oppose us versus not supporting us, I am upset.

so in your eyes they have the "right to choose not to help us" but the don't have the right "to oppose us"? odd to say the least.

Still it's their choice to make. But to say that they have been proven wrong when Saddam has been outed from power and the beginnings of democracy are being planted in Iraq and we have made sure that Iraq will not be a safe harbor to develop and distribute WMD nor to be used as a haven for unmolested terrorist training and bases. Admitedly this topic is highly subjective in many areas, which is why is if false to say that Germany has been proven right in their decision.

Do you want to rewrite this?
The justification for the invasion put forth by the Bush Administration has been proven to be without credibility. No more do we hear of threats to the US and WMD, but rather the humanitarian aspects of removing a totalitarian dictator.

This was the position of the German Government, that there was no material reason for an invasion, that the isolation of Iraq was effective in minimizing the threat Iraq could have been to other countries. Yes, their position is clearly the one that has been validated.

[LRB]

so in your eyes they have the "right to choose not to help us" but the don't have the right "to oppose us"? odd to say the least.

Well Mr. Reading Comprehension Challenged if you would have continued reading you would have said that I agreed that Germany had the right to oppose us. However I and Amercia as a nation has a right to be upset with Germany for opposing us. Odd that you would imply that I or America has less rights than a German or Germany as a whole. Guess you think everyone should have more rights than your countrymen.

Do you want to rewrite this?
The justification for the invasion put forth by the Bush Administration has been proven to be without credibility. No more do we hear of threats to the US and WMD, but rather the humanitarian aspects of removing a totalitarian dictator.

This was the position of the German Government, that there was no material reason for an invasion, that the isolation of Iraq was effective in minimizing the threat Iraq could have been to other countries. Yes, their position is clearly the one that has been validated.

1st of all, German intelligence like our own confirmed that Iraq had WMD's. No we haven't found WMD's. That could be for any of a number of resons. A) there were no WMD's B) the WMD's are hidden C) the WMD's were moved out of Iraq D) the WMD's were destroyed shortly before or during the invasion or E) some combination of B, C, and D.

However just for your obstinate and myopic self, let's assume it was A. That still doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't working towards the creation of WMD's. Infact it can be credibly argued that they were working towards creating the environment where they could create WMD's in secret. If there truely weren't WMD's and all the major world powers intelligence services were fooled on this, they how would we ever have know if and when they created WMD's? The answer is that there is a high probability that we wouldn't.

There is no evidence that isolation of Iraq would have been sufficient. In fact there is evidence that Iraq was corporating and aiding Al Queda. Evidence which has been presented here dozens of times in the past and which you adamently refuse to recognize. All you have is unsubstantiated by facts opinion that Germany was right. However the facts are now that Saddam is out of power and in jail. Al Queda is not free to operate in Iraq without military harrassment. Iraq is not free to produce and distribute WMD's under Saddam. Those are the verifiable facts. Your load of fertilizer is just a bunch of crap.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Well Mr. Reading Comprehension Challenged if you would have continued reading you would have said that I agreed that Germany had the right to oppose us. However I and Amercia as a nation has a right to be upset with Germany for opposing us. Odd that you would imply that I or America has less rights than a German or Germany as a whole. Guess you think everyone should have more rights than your countrymen.

oh so "As to the actions where they worked to oppose us versus not supporting us, I am upset" doesn't mean what it says? OK.

I didn't "imply" anybody has more or less rights. Nice try tho.

Do you want to rewrite this?
The justification for the invasion put forth by the Bush Administration has been proven to be without credibility. No more do we hear of threats to the US and WMD, but rather the humanitarian aspects of removing a totalitarian dictator.

This was the position of the German Government, that there was no material reason for an invasion, that the isolation of Iraq was effective in minimizing the threat Iraq could have been to other countries. Yes, their position is clearly the one that has been validated.

1st of all, German intelligence like our own confirmed that Iraq had WMD's. No we haven't found WMD's. That could be for any of a number of resons. A) there were no WMD's B) the WMD's are hidden C) the WMD's were moved out of Iraq D) the WMD's were destroyed shortly before or during the invasion or E) some combination of B, C, and D.[/quote]

No, there was no "confirmation" at all.

However just for your obstinate and myopic self, let's assume it was A. That still doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't working towards the creation of WMD's. Infact it can be credibly argued that they were working towards creating the environment where they could create WMD's in secret. If there truely weren't WMD's and all the major world powers intelligence services were fooled on this, they how would we ever have know if and when they created WMD's? The answer is that there is a high probability that we wouldn't.

Were they going to "creat WMD's in secret" out of thin air? One would need the materials, which they didn't have as there were constraints on the Iraqis accessing them.

There is no evidence that isolation of Iraq would have been sufficient. In fact there is evidence that Iraq was corporating and aiding Al Queda. Evidence which has been presented here dozens of times in the past and which you adamently refuse to recognize. All you have is unsubstantiated by facts opinion that Germany was right. However the facts are now that Saddam is out of power and in jail. Al Queda is not free to operate in Iraq without military harrassment. Iraq is not free to produce and distribute WMD's under Saddam. Those are the verifiable facts. Your load of fertilizer is just a bunch of crap.

No, the lack of any evidence of a WMD program, coupled with the lack of military capability, is clear evidence the isolation was fruitful in acheiving the goal.
Yes, I'd love to see the "evidence". There is no evidence that al Queda was "free to operate in Iraq" and specifically the part of Iraq under the control of Hussein. There is no evidence that there was production and distribution of any WMD by Iraq, please show otherwise.

Without any evidence that "load of crap" is hitched to your trailer, and the German Government's position is validated.

[LRB]

oh so "As to the actions where they worked to oppose us versus not supporting us, I am upset" doesn't mean what it says? OK.

Actually it does mean what it says, however you're either too much of a moron and/or a jackass to realize it.

I didn't "imply" anybody has more or less rights. Nice try tho.

Whether you realized it or not, you did by implying that Germany and Germans had the right to object to American actions but America and Americans didn't have the right to object to German actions. You're trying to have it both ways and get away with it with your ignorant and foolish prevaricating. Not going to work.

No, there was no "confirmation" at all.

Yes, British, French, German, Russian, and even UN intelligence pointed to WMD's and/or WMD programs being present in Iraq. The confirmed what our own intelligence was telling us versus contradicting. The evidence for this has been presented numerous times. But I see that you still have the osterich with the head in the sand approach.

Were they going to "creat WMD's in secret" out of thin air? One would need the materials, which they didn't have as there were constraints on the Iraqis accessing them.

US forces found at least one majore insecticide plant. The same materials used to make insecticides can be used to make chemical WMD's. So once again you speak out of your ass.

No, the lack of any evidence of a WMD program, coupled with the lack of military capability, is clear evidence the isolation was fruitful in acheiving the goal.
Yes, I'd love to see the "evidence". There is no evidence that al Queda was "free to operate in Iraq" and specifically the part of Iraq under the control of Hussein. There is no evidence that there was production and distribution of any WMD by Iraq, please show otherwise.

Without any evidence that "load of crap" is hitched to your trailer, and the German Government's position is validated.

1st of all I feel sorry for all Germans. They've never looked worse than having you "defend" them. You definitely do them no favors. 2nd the immediate threat was not of Iraq invading a neighbor, but of them developing and distributing WMD's. As long as Saddam was in place that would always be a distinct threat. Iraq could easily have had a few tons of chemical WMD's and have hidden them or removed them from the country. Such a catch could easily been transported in a few trucks or a single airplane. So we can't prove that Iraq didn't have WMD's, just that we haven't found WMD's of any significant quantity. There is no proof that Germany's way would have worked. There is only theory and speculation. Who knows what would have happened if we didn't invade Iraq when we did? No one knows for sure other than US forces most likely wouldn't be in Iraq and even that's not certain. Why do you persist in such moronic assertions about something that can't be fully proved nor disproved?

[madape]

Originally posted by: Fidel
Sorry madape but that`s just bullshit.

If any country has isolated itself recently it is the US under Bush.

And it also seems you don´t really know much about germany and it´s buisiness relationships and foreign policy. In fact we are respected worldwide as trading and buisiness partners and germany is asked pretty often to arbitrate in political conflicts. We currently have troops stationed in about 15 crisis nations worldwide to provide safety and security and help with the reconstruction. And we also have developement aid volunteers in many other countrys. So Germany is well respected (still not liked though because of past events) all over the world. And if you could lay down your USA glasses for just a second you should easily realise that. The USA is not "the world". And to disagree with the USA about something won`t isolate you in the rest of the world.

How has the US isolated itself? Our relations with hundreds of countries OUTSIDE of Europe are stronger than ever. We are helping bring democracy to the Middle East, and as such we can look forward to a period of western-arab cooperation unparelleled in world history. Meanwhile, we are standing hand in hand with Asian countries who twenty years ago wouldn't have dreamed of helping the US. Our relations with long time enemies China and Russia, while not perfect, have never been better.

Yet when we asked for help from our long time European allies and were unceremoniously, and quite rudely rejected. Instead of aid, we received anti-American rhetoric flowing freely from the mouths of German and French politicians. You have heard nothing similar from Bush, only repeated attempts to appease this misguided American hatred. In truth, it is our old allies in Europe who have chosen to abandon the US in it's time of need. If you see America as further isolated from the "world", it's because you interpret the "world" to be France and Germany. I suggest taking off your Euro-centric glasses and see that there is a world outside the Franco-German alliance (which I may add is dropping like a rock in terms of world influence). The more Germany retreats into it's nationalistic, Euro-centric, spider hole, the less relevance it will have on the world.

And as for the great "security and safety" that prove Germany still matters in terms of a world power, I hope you are not referring to the multiple genocidal disasters that the UN has stood watch over in Africa. I can't imagine the situations in Rwanda and the Sudan being handled much worse. I'm sure if you asked the families of the hundreds of thousands of Tutsis murdered (and still being murdered today) under the guise of the UN, or families of the hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese being murdered today under the guise of the UN, you might not hear very many nice things about the "security and safety" being provided by France, Germany, and Kofi's United Nations.

The problem is that Europe still thinks of itself as the center of world influence. Everything it does seems to be aimed at holding onto it's former place as a superpower. The old world powers in Europe have put on hold their historical aspirations of world dominance on a national scale, hoping that by comining their power, they can somehow retain relevance in a place where world leadership is quickly shifting itself across the Atlantic. That's fine, I can understand the need to feel important. But realize that it will be impossible for Europe to do so without maintaining it's alliance with America. In my opinion, Shroeder and Chirac are taking their countries down a dangerous path.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Actually it does mean what it says, however you're either too much of a moron and/or a jackass to realize it.

If it is "moron[ic} you wrote it. the shoe fits.

I didn't "imply" anybody has more or less rights. Nice try tho.

Whether you realized it or not, you did by implying that Germany and Germans had the right to object to American actions but America and Americans didn't have the right to object to German actions. You're trying to have it both ways and get away with it with your ignorant and foolish prevaricating. Not going to work.[/quote]

Show it. You're making this up out of thin air.

No, there was no "confirmation" at all.

Yes, British, French, German, Russian, and even UN intelligence pointed to WMD's and/or WMD programs being present in Iraq. The confirmed what our own intelligence was telling us versus contradicting. The evidence for this has been presented numerous times. But I see that you still have the osterich with the head in the sand approach.[/quote]

No, there was no confirmation, just speculation. It would be great to see the "evidence" you mention. Where is it?

Were they going to "creat WMD's in secret" out of thin air? One would need the materials, which they didn't have as there were constraints on the Iraqis accessing them.

US forces found at least one majore insecticide plant. The same materials used to make insecticides can be used to make chemical WMD's. So once again you speak out of your ass.[/quote]

So many insults, but you have so little facts. No evidence of a WMD program, no evidence of any WMD. Those are the facts.

No, the lack of any evidence of a WMD program, coupled with the lack of military capability, is clear evidence the isolation was fruitful in acheiving the goal.
Yes, I'd love to see the "evidence". There is no evidence that al Queda was "free to operate in Iraq" and specifically the part of Iraq under the control of Hussein. There is no evidence that there was production and distribution of any WMD by Iraq, please show otherwise.

Without any evidence that "load of crap" is hitched to your trailer, and the German Government's position is validated.

1st of all I feel sorry for all Germans. They've never looked worse than having you "defend" them. You definitely do them no favors. 2nd the immediate threat was not of Iraq invading a neighbor, but of them developing and distributing WMD's. As long as Saddam was in place that would always be a distinct threat. Iraq could easily have had a few tons of chemical WMD's and have hidden them or removed them from the country. Such a catch could easily been transported in a few trucks or a single airplane. So we can't prove that Iraq didn't have WMD's, just that we haven't found WMD's of any significant quantity. There is no proof that Germany's way would have worked. There is only theory and speculation. Who knows what would have happened if we didn't invade Iraq when we did? No one knows for sure other than US forces most likely wouldn't be in Iraq and even that's not certain. Why do you persist in such moronic assertions about something that can't be fully proved nor disproved?[/quote]

could have. may have. may have thought that they could have.
They didn't, there were none. That's the facts, ignore them if you wish but they don't go away no matter how much you want them to.
That is proof that the isolation was acheiving its goal. Germany was correct. The neo-cons in the Defense Dept were wrong.

[sturm und drang]

Madape wrote:

"Our relations with hundreds of countries OUTSIDE of Europe are stronger than ever."

This is laughably false. Europe is not alone, unfortunately, in its animosity toward this country. In fact, I suggest just the opposite: that our relations with hundreds of countries outside Europe are weaker than ever before. The world is nearly united – with some exceptions, such as Israel – in its hatred of the U.S.

[madape]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Madape wrote:

"Our relations with hundreds of countries OUTSIDE of Europe are stronger than ever."

This is laughably false. Europe is not alone, unfortunately, in its animosity toward this country. In fact, I suggest just the opposite: that our relations with hundreds of countries outside Europe are weaker than ever before. The world is nearly united – with some exceptions, such as Israel – in its hatred of the U.S.

Laughable eh? I would love to hear your list "hundreds of countries" in which our relationship is weaker. You can leave off that list the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Romania, Czech Republic, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, Korea, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Mongolia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Slovakia, Thailand, Hungary, Philippines, and El Salvador.

They were ALL willing to help a friend in need two years ago. By being a willing part of the coalition, they have proven themselves worthy allies of the United States, and us to them.

Likewise, we have a better relationship with Pakistan than we've ever had in the history of our two countries. We will forever be in debt to them for their efforts in the war on terror. I've already said that we are closer with Russia and China than ever before. Thanks to Bush's open trade policy, we are closer with India. We appear to be on better terms with the Saudis (at least it looks like they are TRYING to be our friends). Libya is shutting down it's terror network in favor of joining the world community. And of course, our alliances with Great Britain and Isreal have grown as tight as any alliance on Earth.

There are some countries who resent the fact that America chooses to protect itself without their permission. However, those countries are number fewer than our Democratic friends would like to think. The truth is that with the exception of a few countries who's aspirations for power supercede their aspirations for world progress, the world is for the most part standing strongly beside us.

[LRB]

Mavdog wrote:

Show it. You're making this up out of thin air.

I'm afraid that you're mentally incapabel of understanding such evidence so it would be a waste of both your time and mine to do this. So I'll just abstain from presenting it once again. In fact I'm done for now arguing with you, for it it completely pointless to argue with you when you refuse to accept even the most basic precepts of logic and dismiss as never being there any facts that you don't like.

[sturm und drang]

First of all, Ape, I thought you were talking about allies outside Europe? The list you named is predominately European – which is interesting, considering your broadstroke condemnation of the continent as a whole.

And if you count the sending of token forces – peace-keeping forces in the 100s, a few ships, etc. – in support of our mission in Iraq as the "strongest bonds ever," you're deluded. You and I both know that the only country providing meaningful support for the U.S. is the U.K. I'm sure you'll respond with a seemingly impressive litany of crap other countries have sent to Iraq, but we all know that the Dutch, Lithuanians, Romanians, et al. are not making any kind of sacrifice to support our mission. It's a nominal facade borne of political and economic arm twisting.

I am of Norwegian heritage and have many Norwegian friends whom I have known for almost 15 years now. I've been speaking with them regularly since our invasion of Iraq, and I can tell you that in the case of Norway – a country you cite as an ally with whom we have better-than-ever relations – the actual population has come to hate America. Norwegians have always loved America and Americans, but I've personally seen the tide change over the past three years. It saddens me deeply that a country which once admired us so now harbors some of the same animosity and distrust for us that the rest of the world does.

I think, unfortunately, that the case of Norway is all-too-illustrative of the worldwide hatred Mr. Bush has incurred on our behalf.

[FishForLunch]

I thought they were all for bringing the troops home.

Must be they are for troops in other nations as long as they are not actually fighting a war.

Or is it if Bush is for it they should be against it.

Maybe they are being sensitive to the economic needs of our allies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry to set out case against US troop realignment
By James Harding in Washington and Peter Spiegel in London
Published: August 17 2004 22:00 | Last updated: August 17 2004 22:00

John Kerry will on Wednesday set out his opposition to the Bush administration's plans to bring home 70,000 US troops from permanent overseas bases, leaving their future dependent on the outcome of the presidential election.


Setting out one of the few clear strategic differences between himself and George W. Bush, Mr Kerry is expected to argue that the withdrawal of troops from Europe and Asia threatens to undercut alliances and weakens America's ability to project its power overseas.

White House officials described the realignment as addressing an outdated distribution of US forces, a legacy of the cold war ill-suited to defeating terrorists.

But Mr Kerry will make what Michael Meehan, a senior adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate, called a “sweeping critique” of the realignment in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Cincinnati the same venue where Mr Bush this week announced the planned withdrawal of a third of US forces from their foreign posts.

Wesley Clark, the retired general now campaigning on Mr Kerry's behalf, on Tuesday offered a taste of the Democratic opposition to a realignment he called “a strategic mistake”.

He said US forces should stay in South Korea and Germany, arguing that Washington was still in a stand-off with a dangerous enemy in North Korea and that the European bases served as “anchor points” for dealing with potential security threats in Africa, the Middle East and the Caucasus.

Mr Clark questioned the mooted cost savings, warned against the damage to US alliances and made the case that the US would be better off having forces stationed in Europe and Asia.

One foreign policy adviser to Mr Kerry said Mr Bush's speech to 15,000 VFW delegates on Monday was “playing politics with national security”, an announcement designed to reinforce his image as commander-in-chief while presenting a positive message about bringing troops home.

But the Bush camp has insisted that the redeployment was based on the views of the military and had been planned long before the election season.

There are roughly 26m military veterans in the US, roughly 13 per cent of the voting-age population. Their vote is particularly important in states such as Florida, one of the handful of battleground states where polls have recently shown Mr Kerry inching ahead of Mr Bush.

But, speaking at a Kerry-Edwards campaign event on Tuesday, Mr Clark said the Clinton administration had made a sufficient post-cold war re-adjustment. He dismissed the latest proposed redeployment as a “shell game” designed to enable the Bush administration to funnel the troops it needs into Iraq.

The announcement has caused some political problems for the German government. Regional officials have warned of large-scale economic problems in cities that house US bases, and several leading opposition figures, including Edmund Stoiber, premier of the southern state home to most American forces, has already called for federal assistance.

[Fidel]

How has the US isolated itself? Our relations with hundreds of countries OUTSIDE of Europe are stronger than ever. We are helping bring democracy to the Middle East, and as such we can look forward to a period of western-arab cooperation unparelleled in world history. Meanwhile, we are standing hand in hand with Asian countries who twenty years ago wouldn't have dreamed of helping the US. Our relations with long time enemies China and Russia, while not perfect, have never been better.

Sturm allready answered that one, but believe whatever you want.

Yet when we asked for help from our long time European allies and were unceremoniously, and quite rudely rejected. Instead of aid, we received anti-American rhetoric flowing freely from the mouths of German and French politicians. You have heard nothing similar from Bush, only repeated attempts to appease this misguided American hatred. In truth, it is our old allies in Europe who have chosen to abandon the US in it's time of need. If you see America as further isolated from the "world", it's because you interpret the "world" to be France and Germany. I suggest taking off your Euro-centric glasses and see that there is a world outside the Franco-German alliance (which I may add is dropping like a rock in terms of world influence). The more Germany retreats into it's nationalistic, Euro-centric, spider hole, the less relevance it will have on the world.

So you pick up my argument and just try to turn it around, nice.

And as for the great "security and safety" that prove Germany still matters in terms of a world power, I hope you are not referring to the multiple genocidal disasters that the UN has stood watch over in Africa. I can't imagine the situations in Rwanda and the Sudan being handled much worse. I'm sure if you asked the families of the hundreds of thousands of Tutsis murdered (and still being murdered today) under the guise of the UN, or families of the hundreds of thousands of black Sudanese being murdered today under the guise of the UN, you might not hear very many nice things about the "security and safety" being provided by France, Germany, and Kofi's United Nations.

For someone who talks as bold as you do your information level definitly isn`t too good. Here´s a short list of missions that the german bundeswehr was involved in in the last 5 years:

finished:

Allied Force (Yugoslavia, 1999)
Operation Enduring Freedom (Kuweit 2002-2003)
CONCORDIA (Mazedonia 2003)
Operation Artemis (Kongo 2003)

still ongoing:

-Enduring Freedom:
Seaforces to control searoutes around africa in the fight on terror (since 2001).
KommandoSpezialKräfte (KSK) and DivisionSpecialOperations (DSO) in Afghanistan.
Medevac medical airbus in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

-International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan (basicly helping Afghanistans new governement with the rebuilding efforts. Mostly providing military/safety help but also humanitarian work. Was led by Germany in 2003.

-SFOR troops in Bosnia to provide security and keep peace (since 1999). SFOR troops in Bosnia are under german command right now.

-KFOR troops in Kosovo with the same purpose (since 1999).

-UNOMIG UN-mission in Georgia (since 1994)

Next time try to be informed a little bit better. But hey I don´t expect you to answer this part of my post anyways. Whenever someone actually posts facts they are overlooked or ignored.

The problem is that Europe still thinks of itself as the center of world influence. Everything it does seems to be aimed at holding onto it's former place as a superpower. The old world powers in Europe have put on hold their historical aspirations of world dominance on a national scale, hoping that by comining their power, they can somehow retain relevance in a place where world leadership is quickly shifting itself across the Atlantic. That's fine, I can understand the need to feel important. But realize that it will be impossible for Europe to do so without maintaining it's alliance with America. In my opinion, Shroeder and Chirac are taking their countries down a dangerous path.

Well actually it´s probably the other way around. Germanys foreign policies have allways been multilateral while the US has an agenda to take action on a unilateral basis at times. Germany has been the thriving force behind the EU expansion (yeah the EU keeps getting bigger) and is also the thriving force behind the new EU constitution. I´d hardly call that isolating, self centered policy.

By the way those "allies" you listed in that other post sure look impressive, lol. Like Sturm said the whole thing is mostly economic and political arm twisting anyways. Alot of the "support" for the Iraq war was probably bought that´s why the list looks like it does.

[dude1394]

Well pretty soon we won't have to debate it. Our soldiers also won't have to be stationed in countries that "HATE US". Of course the same europeans HATED US when reagan was putting missiles into europe facing up to the soviets.

Facing up to the boogey man makes a lot of people afraid.

As far as our allies I think I'll stick with pretty much the same coalition that won WWII. I think that coalition has a pretty good track record.

[Mavdog]

Parts of a speech to the Bundestag in Feb. '03 by Schroeder. The basis of his rejection of war is that there is no nuclear weapons, no way to deliver such if Hussein had them, no certainty of his developing WMD, and lastly the need for the rule of law as there had been no UN authorization for an invasion.
As I said above, the Germans were prescient.
------------------------------------------------------------
Germany is bearing responsibility - responsibility in the struggle against international terrorism, responsibility for enforcing the unconditional disarmament of Iraq, responsibility for peace.

Germany is bearing this responsibility together with other states of the United Nations, and we unerringly stick to this responsibility for peace. Ladies and gentlemen, Germany stands by its alliance duties in NATO. When a partner is attacked, we will defend it...

We are firmly convinced that there are still alternatives, it is not too late to bring about the disarmament of the Iraqi regime by peaceful means

Anybody who wants to settle this crisis with military means must have an answer to the question whether this will give a boost to the global alliance against terrorism, to which more than 50 primarily Muslim nations belong, or whether it might endanger or even break up this alliance, because this would have disastrous consequences for the struggle against international terrorism...

Iraq is doubtlessly ruled by a dictator, whom every one of us would prefer to get rid of sooner rather than later... Iraq definitely does not have nuclear weapons, nor any long-range carrier systems, which could take what it does not have to their targets.

There are indications that Iraq might be capable of producing other weapons of mass destruction... this is the reason why the inspectors who are there now must be able to continue their work...

According to everything we know so far, the latest mission of the UN inspectors in Baghdad has certainly led to progress. The inspectors, who will present another report to the UN Security Council tomorrow, have never left any doubt about the necessary scope of their mission.

Our responsibility is to enable these inspectors to conclude their task successfully... This means the inspections must be continued and expanded...

The alternative is not war or doing nothing. Whoever rejects war is not doomed to appeasement. Our immediate action is basically oriented towards five points:

First, Resolution 1441 does not contain a provision for the automatic development towards the use of military force...

Second, Iraq must cooperate comprehensively and actively with the UN Security Council and the weapons inspectors. We need absolute clarity about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and, if they exist, their final destruction.

Third, the power to decide about the progress made by the inspectors and about all consequences rests with the UN Security Council.

Fourth, the decisive instrument for the abolition of prohibited Iraqi armament programmes is and remains an effective inspection and verification regime. It must be expanded and intensified in line with the requirements.

Fifth, it is our goal to establish lasting structures to contain the dangers emanating from Iraq, for disarmament, and stability in the entire region.

Iraq's neighbouring states - but not only they - must be included more strongly than in the past. The explosive situation in the region and the weapons potentials existing there require comprehensive cooperation.

We are firmly convinced that there are still alternatives, it is not too late to bring about the disarmament of the Iraqi regime by peaceful means - not only in the UN Security Council, not only in the EU, but also here in the Bundestag we will continue to work for a broad majority for a common position in this respect.

I do not want to accept that the only choice is waging a war together with our friends or giving peace a chance without them. We can disarm Iraq without war.

[dude1394]

Richard Holbrooke who is the leading candidate to be Kerry's secretary of state instinctively hits on the winning political response to Bush's troop redeployment: "I know that the Germans are very unhappy about these withdrawals."

Yup...that's a winner.

[madape]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Richard Holbrooke who is the leading candidate to be Kerry's secretary of state instinctively hits on the winning political response to Bush's troop redeployment: "I know that the Germans are very unhappy about these withdrawals."

Yup...that's a winner.