New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Time to pull American Military bases out of Germany

BobbyT

Governor
A coward is a person or a nation that allows a young boy to have his anus ripped in a public pool shower and then shows more sympathy for the assailant than the victim....You in that category?
You seem to have an obsession with that imagery.
 

Boca

Governor
When was the last unprovoked Russian invasion of Germany?
June, 1941 would be the answer George...except you got it assbackwards......that looks to me like a planned invasion of Russia by Germany.

Under the codename Operation "Barbarossa," Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, in the largest German military operation of World War II.


German infantry during the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
 

Boca

Governor
Since Merkel and her band of Isis loving free Loaders think that they have better things to do with their money than to defend their own country I say put them in charge of it.

The Germans have reportedly laughed at Trump's request that they step up their spending to 2% of the GDP.

Let's see them laugh with the prospect of a rapidly growing Russian military power staring them in the face right across the border.

Jo
An anecdote JO,

For several years in the late '70s an early '80s I worked on DoD contract in what was then West Germany. Our offices were on a former German military compound that was converted for our use as maintenance and supply headquarters for all DoD communications in Europe. Basically it was an American military base, complete with soldiers, and Officer's Club, commissary, post exchange and quite a few tanks

Because our responsibility was for all of Europe, plans were made to move to a more centralized location for purposes of efficiency when responding to remotely located equipment problems. Radars, transmitters, air traffic control facilities, telephone switch banks, com centers, and even Armed Forces Television reception in hundreds of locations...offices, barracks, you name it. It would have saved the government hundreds of thousands every year.

However, when the plan was presented and became public local German officials and citizens raised hell at the loss of jobs and commerce as related to soldiers spending dollars on beer and schnitzels.

We abandoned the effort. The benefit for our company though, it being a cost plus fixed fee contract, was we didn't lose any profits.
 
Last edited:

Boca

Governor

"Pentagon Buries Study Revealing $125 Billion In Waste On 'Bloated Bureaucracy'"
And no Lefty bitches about $150 billion turned over to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.... OR.....the State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.
 
And no Lefty bitches about $150 billion turned over to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.... OR.....the State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.
Didn't that $150 billion belong to Iran?

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/
 

Arkady

President
Let's see them laugh with the prospect of a rapidly growing Russian military power staring them in the face right across the border.

Jo
Germany doesn't share a border with Russia. Even if Russia based an attack out of tiny Kalingrad, Russia would first need to pass through Poland. To get to Germany from the Russian mainland, they'd need to pass through both Poland and one or more other intervening nations.

Anyway, German spending is adequate for the current threat. This isn't like the days of the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union spending well over the combined military budgets of NATO's European members. Nor is it like the bad old days when the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies were literally bordering directly on countries like Germany. These days, Russia spends relatively little on its military and would have to fight through hundreds of miles of hostile territory even to reach a nation like Germany.

Using IISS numbers, Russia spends $65.6 billion on its military. That's a bit more than Germany, but considerably less than the combined spending of Germany and France, and vastly less than the 28 EU member states. Any number of combinations of Germany and a few European allies would be more than Russia could handle in a conventional war. For example, just the European countries speaking Germanic languages spend around $144 billion on their militaries, giving them more than a two-to-one advantage over Russia if you were to picture a war along those lines. Unless you can picture all those Germanic countries, as well as France and Italy, standing by and letting the Russians roll into Berlin, the alliance has more than enough firepower to keep the Russians in check, without the need for the US bases there.

That said, I'd welcome the US pulling its military bases out of Germany. It would be a temporary hit to local German economies in places where that employment vanished, but they'd also get back some valuable land to develop, some of it near urban areas where land is at a premium, so long-term they'd be better off. Meanwhile, it would make it harder for the US to run offensive military operations without first convincing its allies that they're actually needed. That would spare us some of our more half-baked interventions. Currently we lean on those bases in places like Germany to administer our wars in the Middle East, and because they're treated as US soil rather than allied soil, we can do so even in cases where our allies disagree with our war (as Germany did when we decided to conquer Iraq). I like the idea of moving to a situation where we need to take the concerns of our allies more seriously -- if we'd listened to Germany's objections more back in 2003, it might have saved us thousands of American lives, trillions of American taxpayer dollars, and untold losses of America's international political capital.
 
Last edited:

Boca

Governor
Didn't that $150 billion belong to Iran?
Not actually, $400 million was kept by Carter, Obama decided he would help fund terrorism by paying interest on it. The interest rate on Treasury debt when borrowing money from the people is somewhere around 2% but Obama decided 17.4% was only fair given the high cost of nuclear fuel and suicide vests.
 
Not actually, $400 million was kept by Carter, Obama decided he would help fund terrorism by paying interest on it. The interest rate on Treasury debt when borrowing money from the people is somewhere around 2% but Obama decided 17.4% was only fair given the high cost of nuclear fuel and suicide vests.
What makes you think Iran funds terrorist activity at a higher rate than the Pentagon?
 

Days

Commentator
Problem is that Poland is between Russia and Germany. I would rather pull all our people out of Europe. If they are going to purposely put cats in their cradles. they don't deserve our help.
except Poland and the Baltics need and deserve our help. Germany also sucks in all kinds of money from our troops buying into their economy... maybe that should go to Poland and the Baltics also.
 

justoffal

Senator
Germany doesn't share a border with Russia. Even if Russia based an attack out of tiny Kalingrad, Russia would first need to pass through Poland. To get to Germany from the Russian mainland, they'd need to pass through both Poland and one or more other intervening nations.

Anyway, German spending is adequate for the current threat. This isn't like the days of the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union spending well over the combined military budgets of NATO's European members. Nor is it like the bad old days when the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies were literally bordering directly on countries like Germany. These days, Russia spends relatively little on its military and would have to fight through hundreds of miles of hostile territory even to reach a nation like Germany.

Using IISS numbers, Russia spends $65.6 billion on its military. That's a bit more than Germany, but considerably less than the combined spending of Germany and France, and vastly less than the 28 EU member states. Any number of combinations of Germany and a few European allies would be more than Russia could handle in a conventional war. For example, just the European countries speaking Germanic languages spend around $144 billion on their militaries, giving them more than a two-to-one advantage over Russia if you were to picture a war along those lines. Unless you can picture all those Germanic countries, as well as France and Italy, standing by and letting the Russians roll into Berlin, the alliance has more than enough firepower to keep the Russians in check, without the need for the US bases there.

That said, I'd welcome the US pulling its military bases out of Germany. It would be a temporary hit to local German economies in places where that employment vanished, but they'd also get back some valuable land to develop, some of it near urban areas where land is at a premium, so long-term they'd be better off. Meanwhile, it would make it harder for the US to run offensive military operations without first convincing its allies that they're actually needed. That would spare us some of our more half-baked interventions. Currently we lean on those bases in places like Germany to administer our wars in the Middle East, and because they're treated as US soil rather than allied soil, we can do so even in cases where our allies disagree with our war (as Germany did when we decided to conquer Iraq). I like the idea of moving to a situation where we need to take the concerns of our allies more seriously -- if we'd listened to Germany's objections more back in 2003, it might have saved us thousands of American lives, trillions of American taxpayer dollars, and untold losses of America's international political capital.

Ahem...yes well I know where exaclty where Poland is Ark ( I realize that you assume most conservatives to be totally uneducated so I understand your need to offer the geography lesson )....I ignored it because I see it as a zero point impediment to the Soviet Military...You are right...this is not the cold war era....and Ground war is no longer the big hit parade it used to be. Not that it is not still a danger as the walk over to Crimea demonstrated. Our Military bases are a warning to nations who would attack...if you attack here you are actually attacking the US. That has $$$$ worth IMO. If Merkel feels that she already contributes enough to NATO...then I say let her decide what level of Military readiness is needed for her own nation without our contribution.

Also I agree on the likelihood of Russia declaring war on anyone...PUTIN unlike his immediate predecessors has a mind for business and understands that War is expensive.
Though I disagree with you on the potential outcome...I think you underestimate the ferocity of what Russia has left. As far as spending ratios are concerned I think we have already had this conversation. You make a good point but I also believe you may be comparing apples and oranges. I don't know what Putin get's in currency/hardware ratio for what he spends...I am quite sure the wages in Europe and much higher than those in Russia however.

Finally I think you have outlined quite nicely why the Military Bases there are superfluous. Craig made an interesting comment about the US being hurt more by a pullout than Germany would be. I don't know if that's true but I suppose it's possible.
In an organized phase out over the course of 5-7 years I believe those assets and troops would be much more valuable reassigned to other areas of real need...South east Asia for instance.

JO
 
Last edited:

justoffal

Senator
Problem is that Poland is between Russia and Germany. I would rather pull all our people out of Europe. If they are going to purposely put cats in their cradles. they don't deserve our help.
Yeah...it's like buying oxygen tanks for people who smoke five packs a day.

JO
 

Arkady

President
Not actually, $400 million was kept by Carter, Obama decided he would help fund terrorism by paying interest on it. The interest rate on Treasury debt when borrowing money from the people is somewhere around 2% but Obama decided 17.4% was only fair given the high cost of nuclear fuel and suicide vests.
Here's some help:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-we-are-not-giving-iran-150-billion/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618

As Michael Molloy put it, "The best I can say is that he got the name of the country right. Almost nothing else in there is right."

The $150 billion estimate is a high-end one, and isn't the $400 million we held plus some assumed interest rate. It's the actual assets that were frozen globally, the valuation of which is uncertain. The $400 million was related to another matter -- not Iran's nuclear program, but instead $400 million Iran paid for weapons we failed to deliver:

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Basically, Iran paid for some jets, then after their government changed we decided we didn't want to deliver those jets, nor to refund them their money.

The interest we paid on that was $1.3 billion:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two-days-after-cash-delivery/

That works out to an implied 4% average annual interest rate. That's is a good deal from the US's perspective, since interest rates were actually very high for much of that period. For example, if you use the 5-year treasury's rate as your benchmark, and track what it would do to $400 million in debt from 1979 through 2016, we'd have owed more like $3.1 billion in interest.
 

justoffal

Senator
Here's some help:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-we-are-not-giving-iran-150-billion/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618

As Michael Molloy put it, "The best I can say is that he got the name of the country right. Almost nothing else in there is right."

The $150 billion estimate is a high-end one, and isn't the $400 million we held plus some assumed interest rate. It's the actual assets that were frozen globally, the valuation of which is uncertain. The $400 million was related to another matter -- not Iran's nuclear program, but instead $400 million Iran paid for weapons we failed to deliver:

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Basically, Iran paid for some jets, then after their government changed we decided we didn't want to deliver those jets, nor to refund them their money.

The interest we paid on that was $1.3 billion:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two-days-after-cash-delivery/

That works out to an implied 4% average annual interest rate. That's is a good deal from the US's perspective, since interest rates were actually very high for much of that period. For example, if you use the 5-year treasury's rate as your benchmark, and track what it would do to $400 million in debt from 1979 through 2016, we'd have owed more like $3.1 billion in interest.
I strongly disagree....the government with which we made that deal is gone forever...with it our obligation IMO. Matter of viewpoint I guess. There was no pressing need either morally or financially to restore that money to the current regime in power. So you're funding oppression, misogyny and alternative lifestyle persecution. Smart move bowels! It was blatant international political fellatio in fact and Obama's lips were stretched pretty badly on that one.

JO
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So why are we stationing all those troops since WWII ???

If they don't need defense, let's use our men and hardware where they are needed... South China Sea mess comes to mind.

Even my 19 year old son is saying the obvious in my left ear: everyone over there facing Russia needs our presence, Germany just doesn't want to pay for it.
Troops were left in Germany at the end of the war because the cold war required it. We have reduced the number of troops there since the 90s. We currently have about 30,000 in Germany.
 

justoffal

Senator
You seem to have an obsession with that imagery.
Yes I do....I have an absolute obsession with it.
Why is it that you do not?

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/24/migrant-who-raped-boy-10-in-sexual-emergency-has-conviction-overtunred-6211056/

This POS should be stripped naked and tied down in front of a column of Army ants.

End of story.

If he was anywhere near me I wouldn't stop until he was dead. I realize that you milktoast liberals would shake his hand and try to appease him.....even if it was your own children.
You disgust me.

JO
 

Boca

Governor
Here's some help:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-we-are-not-giving-iran-150-billion/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618

As Michael Molloy put it, "The best I can say is that he got the name of the country right. Almost nothing else in there is right."

The $150 billion estimate is a high-end one, and isn't the $400 million we held plus some assumed interest rate. It's the actual assets that were frozen globally, the valuation of which is uncertain. The $400 million was related to another matter -- not Iran's nuclear program, but instead $400 million Iran paid for weapons we failed to deliver:

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Basically, Iran paid for some jets, then after their government changed we decided we didn't want to deliver those jets, nor to refund them their money.

The interest we paid on that was $1.3 billion:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two-days-after-cash-delivery/

That works out to an implied 4% average annual interest rate. That's is a good deal from the US's perspective, since interest rates were actually very high for much of that period. For example, if you use the 5-year treasury's rate as your benchmark, and track what it would do to $400 million in debt from 1979 through 2016, we'd have owed more like $3.1 billion in interest.
So if we paid a total $1.7 billion principle and interest who's paying the rest of whatever the total is?
 

Arkady

President
AI realize that you assume most conservatives to be totally uneducated
No. Most have at least some education -- not necessarily enough education to realize Russia doesn't border Germany, judging by what gets posted here, but the mere fact they communicate in something resembling written English suggests some education.

I see it as a zero point impediment to the Soviet Military
That's interesting, but the Soviet military hasn't existed since the early 1990s. It's the Russian military that's at issue. Poland spends about $8.3 billion on its military. That's certainly not enough to hold back the Russians, but it's enough to make their supply lines an absolute nightmare if the Russians tried to sustain a conventional military operation against Germany, especially with the help of a ferociously anti-Russian Polish population acting as guerrilla partisans. So, Poland is certainly an impediment to any plans for Russian aggression against Germany.

If Merkel feels that she already contributes enough to NATO...then I say let her decide what level of Military readiness is needed for her own nation without our contribution.
The US has decided that everyone in Europe should be spending 2% of GDP on defense. But that's Cold War thinking -- it imagines the continued existence of a Soviet Union that is on the same military level as the US, as well as a tightly allied Warsaw Pact that Moscow can use to counter NATO. Those are simply no longer the facts on the ground. 2% is excessive in the current situation. That doesn't mean every NATO country should feel free to spend as little on its military as it wants. It just means the expected commitment should be updated to the new realities. Even if the NATO countries each spent only 1% of their GDPs on their militaries (like Canada), combined NATO spending would remain vastly in excess of what Russia and their smattering of allies spend.

Also I agree on the likelihood of Russia declaring war on anyone...PUTIN unlike his immediate predecessors has a mind for business and understands that War is expensive.
Putin is fairly similar to his predecessors, who had limited designs on Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, but not designs on broader expansion. What he did in Crimea (or earlier in Georgia) isn't terribly different from what various predecessors did in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. If I were, say, Poland, I'd be worried about Putin trying to whittle away at contested lands, the way Russia did with the Ukraine's Crimea. But it makes sense Germany isn't terribly alarmed right now.

I don't know what Putin get's in currency/hardware ratio for what he spends...I am quite sure the wages in Europe and much higher than those in Russia however.
That matters when it comes to personnel, but personnel are less and less the primary concern -- hardware is. And there's a global market in military hardware.
 

Arkady

President
So if we paid a total $1.7 billion principle and interest who's paying the rest of whatever the total is?
They're Iranian assets, which are simply being released to them. For example, if Iran had gold sitting in a vault in Switzerland for years, that vault is now accessible to them. If they owned stock in some foreign company, they now again have access to those shares. There's real estate as well, all over the world -- for example, Iran legally owns the land on which its embassy was located in the US, but the US impounded that and rented it out to others for many years. Now the Iranians are again able to use it (or to sell it). That's why the exact value of the deal is hard to calculate -- it's not just a bunch of fungible assets sitting in an account somewhere. It's a lot of unique property, including plots of land and even artwork that was sitting abroad and got impounded. For example, the Tehran museum of contemporary art bought some artwork back in 1978, which hadn't been delivered yet as of 1979, and it wound up impounded for decades. No doubt other art pieces have also been impounded (e.g., stuff that was on tour abroad at the time of the revolution, and then never returned). You can try to assess the value of those things, but for assets where the market isn't particularly liquid, like real estate, privately held stock, and art, that's going to be tougher than for cash, gold, and publicly traded stocks.
 
Top