America to withdraw troops from EU

gandalf

thejollyrodger wrote:

yeah, thats a standing army. Those countries dont have any strategic air lift and thus cant go anywhere;)

Well alot of European Countries have older C-130's but I suppose the 197 A400M's discussed here could help as well :rolleyes:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182001

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

Oh my god ! Have you not heard about the cold war thing ?

Yes, but I heard it ended in 1991, so your telling me the US couldn't withdraw because they couldn't think of an excuse for 13 years?

By the way, still waiting on that link about compensation.

You want the truth? The US isn't the superpower it once was. The $ is worth crap in Europe (and most of the rest of the world), which means spiralling expenses to host people in Europe. Add to that fighting a war which can't be maintained without troop movements or conscription (which the US public won't stand for).

While the US has lifting abilities, it still requires refuellng points. It can't do that without forward bases. Also a lot of stratigic defense of the US is based on having forward bases (eg. Missile Defense Shield, First Strike).

chewy

"(and for the record, I agreed with them on Iraq)"

you mean you went all antiwar cos you wanted a slice of the (iraqi) pie and didn't think the americans should have it all?

did someone not say recently on another that most of the genoicde occurred after the us/un bombing started? so us didn't sort that one out prefectlly


what is it about transport, strategic airlift etc ya think britain only had a hanglider and dingy?

its been referred to with gulf and sundan why is it that amerca or the only ones able to get anywhere what is it they have that non-one else does?

ionapaul

chewy wrote:

what is it about transport, strategic airlift etc ya think britain only had a hanglider and dingy?

its been referred to with gulf and sundan why is it that amerca or the only ones able to get anywhere what is it they have that non-one else does?

Well the truth of the matter seems to be that despite all the talk, when people look for an army to go in and 'clean up' Sudan, they are going to look at the US and the UK, 'cause we all know the French and Germans can't/won't get involved, let alone the members of the African Union. Same with Kosovo, if the Americans didn't go in, the Europeans certainly weren't going to! God forbid Ireland ever needed military intervention (amazingly unlikely, civil war could be the only instance remotely imaginable), you know we'd all be screaming for the Americans or Brits to help us out.
Not that the pluses of a large and effective American military necessarily outweigh the negatives, just saying...better one of our closest allies than an indifferent or ideologically-opposite country.

Sand

I guess its been on the cards for a long time - The Cold War has ended and the troops that helped secure democratic Europe from the Soviets are now smugly dismissed as loafers in cushy jobs. The bases arent really a benefit to the US, in that Europe is not a potentially important theatre anymore and they can get bases in friendlier nations elsewhere.

The same is true of South Korea. Troops that helped ensure the South Koreans arent ruled over by a certain North Korean dictator are now apparently part of the problem. Again it cant be cheap to maintain those troops and they do tie the US into protecting SK, whether they want to or not ( and whether the SKs want them to or not, which isnt clear these days ), so its best to start pulling them out and redeploy them elsewhere.

The troops in Europe might have granted the US unusual influence in European politics when the Soviets were massing on the borders, but since that threat has vanished so has the influence derived from the troops. Several European leaders have since then been doing their best to push the US out of their way, and sadly this is another sign of the US reacting to that. In their quest for a European superstate, which is first and forement "not the US ", some politicans are breaking apart a democratic alliance thats held together since WW2.

You resent. You **RESENT** helping people in trouble.

Thats not what she said and you know it. Her point that despite the Balkans being on the very doorstep of the EU, the US had to be the main one to try and end the wars there. Its a valid point. And if you look at Chewys comment

did someone not say recently on another that most of the genoicde occurred after the us/un bombing started? so us didn't sort that one out prefectlly

theyre still getting flak for it, despite the EU miserably failing to do anything about it. That I imagine is where the resentment springs from. Stop with the pretence of indignation.

chewy

its not indignation it just there was too may the us saved the balkans (fullstop) posts for my liking

and in the same post i slaged of france and germany too for being self interested

--

so it taken 50 years for large numbers of troops to leave germany and we're supposed to believe america will be out of iraq in 5 yrs?

keu

re Sudan :Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war for all but 10 years of this period (1972-82). The wars are rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. Since 1983, the war and war- and famine-related effects have led to more than 2 million deaths and over 4 million people displaced. The ruling regime is a mixture of military elite and an Islamist party that came to power in a 1989 coup. Some northern opposition parties have made common cause with the southern rebels and entered the war as a part of an anti-government alliance. Peace talks gained momentum in 2002-03 with the signing of several accords, including a cease-fire agreement.

me wonders who brokerd such a peace deal

"Sudan has turned around a struggling economy with sound economic policies and infrastructure investments, but it still faces formidable economic problems, starting from its low level of per capita output. From 1997 to date, Sudan has been implementing IMF macroeconomic reforms. In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate."

Both the UK and US have vested interests in Sudan.
(and most of the other situations they choose to get into)

I have always been under the impression that europe supports diplomacy in an effort to resolve differences and provide "peace keeping forces" as oppose to military might. (Ireland included)

linky

keu

and personally, I think the sentiments of both world wars still lingers amid europe with regard to the balkans. Any military action on europes part would seem like the beginning of WW3.
(and then America could come in and save us all again)

the balkans
1995
"American pressure to end the war eventually led to the Dayton agreement of November 1995 which created two self-governing entities within Bosnia - the Bosnian Serb Republic and the Muslim(Bosnjak)-Croat Federation. The settlement's aims were to bring about the reintegration of Bosnia and to protect the human rights but the agreement has been criticised for not reversing the results of ethnic cleansing. A man carrying an injured child in Sarajevo The Muslim-Croat and Serb entities have their own governments, parliaments and armies. A Nato-led peacekeeping force is charged with implementing the military aspects of the peace agreement, primarily overseeing the separation of forces. But the force was also granted extensive additional powers, including the authority to arrest indicted war criminals when encountered in the normal course of its duties."


1999
"Threats of military action by the West over the crisis culminated in the launching of Nato air strikes against Yugoslavia in March 1999, the first attack on a sovereign European country in the alliance's history. The strikes focused primarily on military targets in Kosovo and Serbia, but extended to a wide range of other facilities, including bridges, oil refineries, power supplies and communications."

2000
"Slobodan Milosevic lost a presidential election in 2000. He refused to accept the result but was forced out of office by strikes and massive street protests, which culminated in the storming of parliament. He was handed over to a UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and put on trial for crimes against humanity and genocide. Kosovo itself became a UN protectorate"

"Conflict between Serbs and ethnic Albanians threatened to erupt in late 2000 in the Presevo valley, on the Serbian side of the Kosovo border, but dialogue between Albanian guerrillas and the new democratic authorities in Belgrade allowed tensions to evaporate. There was, however, a major outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in Macedonia in 2001, again involving the Albanian minority. This was contained by Nato peacekeepers and ultimately resolved by political means."

2003
"Yugoslavia has disappeared from the map of Europe, after 83 years of existence, to be replaced by a looser union called simply Serbia and Montenegro, after the two remaining republics.
The arrangement was reached under pressure from the European Union, which wanted to halt Montenegro’s progress towards full independence. However, Montenegrin politicians say they will hold a referendum on independence in 2006."


linky

mike65

chewy wrote:

its not indignation it just there was too may the us saved the balkans (fullstop) posts for my liking

?

And now in English....

Mike.

chewy

europe favours diplmacy cos its doenst' ahve the might

i never forget when somesaid said with pride that ireland had never invaded anyone (not historically true) but this is because we're a small country and don't have the resources too ?

The Corinthian

Europe has been abdicating her military responsibility for far too long. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that the US is beginning to pull out of Europe as it may finally engender us to stand on our own feet again militarily.

Captain Trips

keu wrote:

I thought the *liberation* of China was next on the agenda?

As long as the Chinese keep moving troops around in small groups of 2 million on the Korean border I'd say the US would be a little overstretched to go for that "sleeping dragon"

Captain Trips

thejollyrodger wrote:

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably. It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

YEs, because after all Europe is one of the most despised collection of countries/states, under "constant" terror threat and involves itself in aggressive expansionism.

Nothing to do with actually involving itself in the UN and international diplomacy, creation of the largest single currency bloc in the world and incorporating old eastern bloc countries to a single union.

keu

europe favours diplmacy cos its doenst' ahve the might
europe favours diplomacy because it decided that was the only way forward after WW2.

keu

"Nothing to do with actually involving itself in the UN and international diplomacy, creation of the largest single currency bloc in the world and incorporating old eastern bloc countries to a single union."

but was this done by voilent means? Were guns put to the heads of the new member states forcing them to join the Eu?
we got to vote..remember?
I wouldn't consider this agressive expansionism.

aye..the pen is mightier than the sword.

keu

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably. It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

what the hell is this? It was primarily Nato who dealt with the Balkans, this was a conjoined effort.
what am I missing here?

sceptre

keu wrote:

but was this done by voilent means? Were guns put to the heads of the new member states forcing them to join the Eu?
we got to vote..remember?
I wouldn't consider this agressive expansionism.

Check the battery on your sarcasm/irony/too bloody right detector

keu

lol..yea i know I'm starting to believe myself.

adjodlo

ColoradoGal wrote:

"personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made. Its about time the EU doet not have to look for the US on defence, and it should be able to stand on its own 2 feet"

There is a point to that. Chiraq and Schroeder certaily have been walking the walk lately! (and for the record, I agreed with them on Iraq) Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo. That's a European mess, and we got blamed for intervening after nobody else was doing anything to stop the genocide! Although I think highly of the current Germany, I'm sure I'm not alone in being cautious of a unified Germany growing a large army again though.

Colorado eh. Don't worry, like you said you're probably not alone :rolleyes:

ColoradoGal

"what the hell is this? It was primarily Nato who dealt with the Balkans, this was a conjoined effort. what am I missing here?"

Well yes it certainly was a shared effort, but the US spent over 12 billion dollars in that endeavor and more troops if I'm not mistaken. Americans and Bill Clinton also got the most "heat" for it among Serbians and others who opposed the intervention. I personally was against bombing all their historic bridges and using weapons with depleated uranium, by the by.

Ironically, GW Bush ran in 2000 as a non-interventionalist! He specifically spoke out against Nation Building!! Now who's the "flip-flopper"?

Adjodlo, thanks for concurring with me above - hey, maybe you can pump up my ratings here. I've only got a lousy 1 Star user rating on these boards, yikes! :rolleyes:

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

they are going to look at the US and the UK, 'cause we all know the French and Germans can't/won't get involved, let alone the members of the African Union. Same with Kosovo, if the Americans didn't go in, the Europeans certainly weren't going to!

UK is part of the EU at the moment you know.

Hobbes

keu wrote:

europe favours diplmacy cos its doenst' ahve the might
europe favours diplomacy because it decided that was the only way forward after WW2.

Exactly... Europe favours diplomacy because it knows what to live through a world war is like. Military might aside, it is for all intents and purposes a super-power.

Hobbes

Captain Trips wrote:

YEs, because after all Europe is one of the most despised collection of countries/states, under "constant" terror threat and involves itself in aggressive expansionism.

Can you post some kind of proof to that?

Proof on the EU being...

- Most despised.

- Constant Terror

- Aggressive expansionism.

thejollyrodger

Well alot of European Countries have older C-130's but I suppose the 197 A400M's discussed here could help as well

Most European nations have c-130’s but don’t confuse strategic air lift and tactical air lift. Tactical air lift is usually in theatre and the C-130 can carry it out. Its lighter loads and shorter ranges. Strategic air lift is something like the Globemaster, Galaxy or Antinov. The brits don’t have any of these either do most of the other European nations.

Yes, but I heard it ended in 1991, so your telling me the US couldn't withdraw because they couldn't think of an excuse for 13 years?

That’s exactly what I’m saying. You cant exactly move all the troops back the U.S and then figure that you have to move them all back.

While the US has lifting abilities, it still requires refuellng points. It can't do that without forward bases. Also a lot of stratigic defense of the US is based on having forward bases (eg. Missile Defense Shield, First Strike).

The U.S has mothballed bases in the U.K which it re opens when a war starts up. They can use it as a refueling or stop off point and its dead cheap to operate. Also the U.S can still rely on the U.K to base strategic missiles. These two services should be offered by the Irish government free of charge, it’s the least we can do.

what the hell is this? It was primarily Nato who dealt with the Balkans, this was a conjoined effort.

American hardware, American leadership and vision and American Command and Control

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

That’s exactly what I’m saying. You cant exactly move all the troops back the U.S and then figure that you have to move them all back.

So your telling me that the US army have the ability to airlift to get anywhere in the world but couldn't leave Europe because they may have to airlift their armies?

So the cost of airlifting 70,000 people costs more then just having them there for all that time? Must be why Bush is delaying most of the move for 10 years.

** Dumbed down for Jolly **

You say "USA can airlift anywhere!"
You say "USA didn't move troops because we would have to move them again"

You are also flawed a bit in your logic that "We don't need bases in Europe" but then go onto talk about "Reactivating bases in Europe at time of war".

Lastly for anyone whos thinking the US is pulling out, they are doing this over 10 years. The main core of troops will be ending up in Iraq.

Edit: Checked with my cousin (who is currently stationed in Germany). The pull out will be factored over 10 years, and it doesn't actually start until 2006.

thejollyrodger

the above post makes no sense, please edit it and ill post a reply.

** EDIT ** Please put it in english

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

the above post makes no sense, please edit it and ill post a reply.

I will as soon as you tell me what language you require it in.

thejollyrodger

So your telling me that the US army have the ability to airlift to get anywhere in the world but couldn't leave Europe because they may have to airlift their armies?

what exctlu does that mean? Is it :-

Are you telling me that the US has the ability to airlift anywhere in the world, but cant leave Europe because it has to airlift its own troops. To do this it requires to fly through Europe?

Well the US needs some air bases in Europe. These can be the mothballed ones in England.

So the cost of airlifting 70,000 people costs more then just having them there for all that time? Must be why Bush is delaying most of the move for 10 years.

I take it your referring to my previous point, the US cant bring all the troops home and then decide it has to move them all back again. What I meant was, should the US decide move all the troops out of Germany and other places its going to be a big operation, getting rid of all the barracks, returning all the land, moving hardware back, doing a military re-organisation. That all takes a lot of money and time. Actually moving soldiers is a lot cheaper, a civilan airline will do. Spreading the task over 10 years makes a lot of sense, there is no sharp shock.

You are also flawed a bit in your logic that "We don't need bases in Europe" but then go onto talk about "Reactivating bases in Europe at time of war".

I dont think Im flawed at all. The US doesnt need any TROOPS in Europe, I did note it needed mothballed airbases as a stop off point (eg Shannon) or that airbase in England. Also it may need the U.K as a strategic weapons base.

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

What exactly is your point?

Your point you mean.

You say that the US military can go to anywhere in the world fast which is why they shouldn't be in Europe.

Then go to explain in detail how it is not possible to move so quickly, and that is why the troops were in the EU to begin with.

thejollyrodger

Listen here pal, that is not what I said.

What I did say, was that the U.S doesnt need to be in Europe since the demise of the Cold War. However since the cold war ended the new threat has been difficult to establish and thus it was hard to redeploy troops in the proper footing to meet the threat. It would be foolish to make any rash decisions. Now that the threat has been identified the US can start to redeploy.

Then go to explain in detail how it is not possible to move so quickly, and that is why the troops were in the EU to begin with

The troops are there because of the cold war. Redeploying troops takes a while. Some of your posts are ridiculous.