America to withdraw troops from EU

bonkey

RicardoSmith wrote:

Do people really think they need atomic weapons?

I most certainly don't.

However, I also don't think that any nation possessing a weapon (or other item) which they are unwilling to relinquish has the right to deny other nations access to the same weapon (or item).

I can see why they would want to, but that doesn't make it the right way.

Ultimately, I would prefer to see a world where the nuclear powers set about destroying their own arsenals whilst at the same time attempting to ensure that others don't develop replacement ones....but I recognise how unlikely that is.

jc

Typedef

RichardoSmith wrote:

US policy has always been to protect its own interests

'Every' countries policy is to persue it's own interests, it's just that the big boys can generally manipulate the little boys into doing what they want.

In the context of Pakistan, which has been raised a number of times, I have to say that, the quick switch which was made for the sake of the Afghani war, shows, just 'how' irrelevant so called rouge nations are as military threats. The big powers don't have any overt military fears from such states, because in a confrontation the smaller state simply becomes obliterated.

Only really in the context of terrorism, are large countries virtually defenceless. Thus the entertainment provided, the intrigue rather, of international politics is of no real relevance to foreign policy, the real foreign policy, in the Nuclear age, is the politics of enciting terrorism.

The US, in my opinion has got it wrong, in overtly fighting what it calls terrorists. Such overt action, didn't work for the British in Northern Ireland, isn't working for the Russians in Chechnya and most likely won't work for the Americans against Al-Queda.

To effectively deal with a 'terrorist' threat, you would have to rule the so called 'terrorist' people, with an Iron fist... one similar to how the Israelis responded to the Intafada... one of merciless, military occupation until you completely remove the will of the other side to fight. This is what was done with Japan and Germany, but, not done with the Palestinians and until such time as the United States 'rules' in an iron fisted military manner, those it accuses of being terrorists, the seeds of discontent, will germinate in the living space provided by a lack of military attrition.

So from where I sit, unless the United States has the metal to invade the likes of Iran, Lybia, Sudan and crush quite mercilessly it's opposition, it *must* radically change it's foreign policy.

What happens when the Iraqis currently fighting America in Iraq, come to exact their revenge through (established) internation terrorist organisations, on American soil?

Invasion of Iraq, gave Al Queda, everything it ever needed, in terms of incitement and 'personell' to attack the United States.

RicardoSmith

Japan and Germany did not use terrorism in the modern sense. So any using that as an exmaple as Military occupation working in that instance is null and void. Their armies were defeated in the field and the infrastructure to wage war was destroyed. You can't do this with terrorisim.

How can you say that military occupation will work, and then give an example of it not working, as in N.Ireland??? Rep of Ireland is even a better example of it not working.

Right has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The US is many times more powerful economicallly and militarily than any other country in the world. That gives it the means to dictate its policies an will on other nations. What has right got to do with it? When the US is protecting its interests. This also includes its economic interests. Smaller countries can have an effect on the US if they dis-stable a region. Like the middle east. Which is why the US puts the boot in.

isolde

Back on the subject of the US pulling its troops out of the EU, I think it will be a shame for the German economy. I have no idea of facts and figures but I live in Germany and am currently "seeing" a US soldier and, believe me, they spend a hell of a lot of money. In some places they are really necessary and you can see the difference now that a huge amount of them are back from Iraq.
Leaving money aside, I think it will be a good thing to do away with huge bases like Ramstein. The soldiers mix with the locals very little and the bases are basically like mini-Americas. Dollars used in the shops, etc... it's hardly necessary to leave the bases. Some of the soldiers have been here for years and can't speak a word of the language. In ways I feel they are resented by the locals but I think if there were better methods of integration it would probably work better. But I guess that foreign influences are always going to be resented, regardless of the country and its history.

~ isolde.

Hobbes

Loss of money is certainly a factor, but US people have been spending less abroad because the $ is worth a lot less then it was. So it is costing more to keep troops here.

gobby

The americans do pump a lot of cash into the German economy. And the German economy certainly needs it at the moment!