Can we all agree that Germany no longer needs U.S. Occupation?

[Taz]

I say bring the troops home and then nuke the fucking place.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I try my best to avoid taking a stance until hearing the facts. Does Germany want us out? What military services do our German bases support? Does getting out also refer to the military hospital there and if so, how would that effect care of our injured?

Very good questions, I have heard nothing about us leaving Germany.

I haven't either........while some there may not want us there it is doubtful that the majority of them want us out. I'd have to see it proven for me to believe that.

Regardless..........Germany is a key strategic area for the United States in Europe.

Yes, those massive protests being held at the bases and the German government passing resolutions wanting us out are the real deal breakers.

Oh, wait! None of that has happened

I say bring the troops home and then nuke the fucking place.

That's exactly what this thread needed! An articulate, well-thought out, and reasonable course of action that all can agree with!

Dumb ass!

 

[MaryL]

Seriously. WTF are we still doing in Germany?

For how many decades must Germany atone for the sins of prior generations before it is allowed complete autonomy?

Our military should GET THE FUCK OUT. (and save us a bunch of money in the process)




Free Germany NOW!!

Sing The Scorpions with me:

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away (dream away)
In the wind of change

Well, no. Deutschland launched a needless world war and committed genocide, the last thing they can complain about is occupation. Plus we in the west funded and practically helped Germany become a superpower... Outrage noted.

 

[Spare_change]

When was the last time one nation invaded another, other than the US?

It is funny how the Cons on here tell us day in and day out that Russia is not our enemy, yet we have to keep 100,000 troops stationed abroad to keep them from taking over the world.

So, which is it?

Hmmmm --- let's see.

Iraq invaded Kuwait.

"Mr.Romney - the 80s called. They want their foreign policy back." - Barack Obama

 

[BlackSand]

I bet you don't know the casualties your allies, NATO and others, have taken for you in Afghanistan, while you bleat they're not meeting any cost.

No near as many (even per capita) as the US ...
And as far as paying the costs ... European NATO countries just need to start paying the money they agreed to pay NATO ...
Or shut the fuck up until we ask you a question ...

.

 

[thanatos144]

It seems US troops are in most of the countries of the world. We need to get them out. We need to stop foreign aid. We need to stop giving welfare to immigrants. So many ways we should save money and otherwise stop hurting ourselves.

Yeah - save money!!!! That's what it's all about.

Don't worry about tactical or strategic considerations. Don't worry about the increased cost, in blood and treasure, from fighting the enemy in Charleston, SC Roanoke, VA , San Francisco, International Falls, MN, Phoenix, or Dallas.

Only thing that matters is money ....

We'd do more than save money. If we "pulled out of the world", not only would we save money, we'd stop making enemies. The shithead thinks 9/11 happened for lack of US meddling in the middle-east, when just the opposite is true. The shithead mutters stupid things about tactical advantage, and whatnot, to rationalize self-destructive foreign policy.

Shitead, the biggest cause of Muslim immigration to America is you shitheads building roads between the US and the middle-east, so to speak. Besides, if you shitheads stopped demanding the US s spread itself across the globe, then you could focus more on restricting immigration to America. But, in truth, a shithead like you is the enemy of God and country.

You must want to move out of the usa since you see it as the cause of all the evil in the world

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Isolation isn't good for the country

How do you know, In the history of the Unite States it has never been our foriegn policy. It is our interventionist policy that has gotten us in trouble for the past 100 years.

Because every world war started with us isolating ourselves

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[longknife]

I spent 12 years in France, Germany, and Austria and have a very good knowledge of why we are there and in Italy too. We do not have to station a lot of troops there because we have so much equipment and ammo pre-positioned there just for emergency use. It's a matter of moving personnel from stateside, something that has been carefully planned.

I have also come to strongly believe that it is time for NATO to defend itself and have the US taxpayers stop funding their defense.

If the president is able to end that horrible sequester, US forces can be pre-positioned here in the USA to meet military requirements anywhere in the world quickly and efficiently.

 

[percysunshine]

Seriously. WTF are we still doing in Germany?

For how many decades must Germany atone for the sins of prior generations before it is allowed complete autonomy?

Our military should GET THE FUCK OUT. (and save us a bunch of money in the process)




Free Germany NOW!!

Sing The Scorpions with me:

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away (dream away)
In the wind of change

Naw...we should occupy Berlin with tanks just to piss off the Russians and remind them they lost the cold war.

 

[dblack]

The question is really: Can we all agree that the US doesn't need to have a dominant military presence in every corner of the globe?

 

[Correll]

US forces in Germany are not an occupation force, and have not been for generations.


That being said, NATO, has become more of a threat to peace than a deterrent imo, and we should leave it.

 

[BulletProof]

Germany still is ground zero in any scenario involving Russia.

In 2017, the US spent $611 billion on the military. Russia spent 69 billion. Our European allies, such as Germany, France, and the UK, together spend several times more on their militaries than Russia spends. Even if the US pulled out of Germany, Russia wouldn't dare attack. If Germany feels any fear with out the US, let them increase their own military spending. But, I think Germany alone could already repeal any Russian attacks, even if Germany had no allies. Russia spreads their military over a great area, whereas Germany need only worry about a tiny border.

Pulling troops out of Germany is an idea that has clearly been hatched in the mind of someone who has no concept of the threat model in Europe.

Go fuck yourself, shithead, and stop stealing my money to pay for your dreams of WWIII.

Besides, I don't think there's much left of the west to defend, shithead.

 

[Desperado]

We need more politicians like Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul who have different foreign policy ideas than our current crop Neocons

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The question is really: Can we all agree that the US doesn't need to have a dominant military presence in every corner of the globe?

We don't.

Your imagination is running away with you!

 

[eagle1462010]

Isolationism policy doesn't work. Neither does endless wars in the sandy region of the world.

I would remind you that this is not the cold war era. With the weapons and capabilities of today's militaries there is no time like there was in WWII.

We can get hit quickly with air power almost anywhere in the world now. What you have there should the worst ever happen have to be there and ready up front.

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

That's not true ... and that ISN'T a matter of opinion.

I spent 3 years in the Planning section at the Pentagon (I was in the Air Force) On our best day, we couldn't deploy aircraft in that kind of time frame ... and now, given the impact of sequester, we can't even find a half dozen planes that are operational to deploy.

You can't expect me to believe all of that............

Tell me the Air Force can't maintain it's capabilities..................I was in the Navy and every dang thing on a carrier could fly at a moments notice........

So.........I doubt you........and hope the hell I'm right.............No dang way that many planes are grounded now.

Oooh .... naval air power!!!

So, tell me, what is the operating range of planes off a carrier? The common estimate is less than 1,000 miles - and those are one-time strike and return missions. How much payload can those planes put on target, given that flight distance and landing profile? How many heavy bombers can the Navy deploy into Europe on a one-day notice?

Are you suggesting that it is more feasible, more economical to station aircraft carriers off the shores of Europe than it is to retain troops on the ground?

Now - about the Air Force. You realize, of course, that the Air Force currently has fewer aircraft than any time since 1947. You're aware, of course, that the Air Force just announced that they are 1,700 pilots short of the minimum required to remain fully operational status. You're aware, of course, that Air Force planes are, on average, 27 years old. You're aware of course that the first B-52 flew in 1952. That's 66 years ago!!! And, they're still operational!.

You're aware, of course, that on 15 Dec, the US Air Force Chief of Staff briefed the House Armed Services Committee that almost 40% of its aircraft were non-operational due to lack of parts, and that a majority of the remaining 60% had been "yellow tagged" - meaning they had faults that did not prevent them from flying.

You're aware, of course, that Bill Clinton changed the basic military requirement from being capable to conducting two wars simultaneously (think WWII) to conducting one war and one "holding action", and that Barack Obama eliminated the "holding action" proviso, thus further depleting the military resource pool.

So, in answer to your question - no, the Air Force can't maintain its full capabilities. Neither can the Navy - our Navy today is the lowest number of ships since 1917, and half of what it was in 1988. The Navy has 10 aircraft carriers - 7 of which are in service. Put them on a rotation, and you can cover 2, maybe 3, locations? What about North Korea? China?

No - sadly, our military is greatly diminished. We need to rebuild it.

I read some articles to back up your claim.......and indeed there is operational problems and maintenance Problems..........Out of some 5400 aircraft......you get 50% to 60% of the aircraft able to fly at any given time.............But that is still 2700 aircraft........

You are correct it's time to overhaul and replace a aging fleet of aircraft...............

So now comes the question is it fiscal problems causing so many aircraft to be down at once..........lack of spare part availability..........or maintenance personnel............or all of the above..............

Seems excessive unless the budget has been so slashed that the repairs can't be made.......

Still doesn't change my position to have forward deployed aircraft in Europe.

The Top 5 Countries with the Largest Air Forces

Even at 50% operational rate.........it would still exceed the numbers of aircraft totals to any other nations air force in the world.

 

[eagle1462010]

Growing readiness woes: Only 7 in 10 Air Force planes are ready to fly

article on readiness problems with the airforce

 

[eagle1462010]

NASA - F-18 Performance / Specifications

700 nautical miles..........1000 nautical miles with external tank.............Can be refueled in air just like the airforce......

While it's not a B!.........for a fighter attack aircraft it's range is very good.............since you asked.

 

[Spare_change]

Germany still is ground zero in any scenario involving Russia.

In 2017, the US spent $611 billion on the military. Russia spent 69 billion. Our European allies, such as Germany, France, and the UK, together spend several times more on their militaries than Russia spends. Even if the US pulled out of Germany, Russia wouldn't dare attack. If Germany feels any fear with out the US, let them increase their own military spending. But, I think Germany alone could already repeal any Russian attacks, even if Germany had no allies. Russia spreads their military over a great area, whereas Germany need only worry about a tiny border.

Pulling troops out of Germany is an idea that has clearly been hatched in the mind of someone who has no concept of the threat model in Europe.

Go fuck yourself, shithead, and stop stealing my money to pay for your dreams of WWIII.

Besides, I don't think there's much left of the west to defend, shithead.

Your ignorance abounds!

You sound like Obama ---- if we leave Russia alone, they won't attack Ukraine. Wait? What? They took Crimea?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Russia does not represent a threat to US interests? Really? Are you really trying to tell me that you think that Germany can mount a cogent defense against Russia? You're so busy comparing US expenditures against Russian expenditures - but it wouldn't be us, would it? It would be Germany.

The Russian military? 1.01 million soldiers. The German military? 60 thousand soldiers. You seriously believe that Germany could stop them?

How about the Netherlands? Portugal? Spain? France? Which one is going to stop the onslaught? Then, as Russia embeds itself, and begins to exploit the natural resources, are we supposed to mount an across-the-ocean counter-attack? Or, would you prefer we just wait until they land in North Carolina?

See what massive ignorance does to you?

 

[Spare_change]

That is simply not true ... you've read too many Tom Clancy novels.

That is a matter of opinion regarding that air power can be anywhere in the world well within a day.

That's not true ... and that ISN'T a matter of opinion.

I spent 3 years in the Planning section at the Pentagon (I was in the Air Force) On our best day, we couldn't deploy aircraft in that kind of time frame ... and now, given the impact of sequester, we can't even find a half dozen planes that are operational to deploy.

You can't expect me to believe all of that............

Tell me the Air Force can't maintain it's capabilities..................I was in the Navy and every dang thing on a carrier could fly at a moments notice........

So.........I doubt you........and hope the hell I'm right.............No dang way that many planes are grounded now.

Oooh .... naval air power!!!

So, tell me, what is the operating range of planes off a carrier? The common estimate is less than 1,000 miles - and those are one-time strike and return missions. How much payload can those planes put on target, given that flight distance and landing profile? How many heavy bombers can the Navy deploy into Europe on a one-day notice?

Are you suggesting that it is more feasible, more economical to station aircraft carriers off the shores of Europe than it is to retain troops on the ground?

Now - about the Air Force. You realize, of course, that the Air Force currently has fewer aircraft than any time since 1947. You're aware, of course, that the Air Force just announced that they are 1,700 pilots short of the minimum required to remain fully operational status. You're aware, of course, that Air Force planes are, on average, 27 years old. You're aware of course that the first B-52 flew in 1952. That's 66 years ago!!! And, they're still operational!.

You're aware, of course, that on 15 Dec, the US Air Force Chief of Staff briefed the House Armed Services Committee that almost 40% of its aircraft were non-operational due to lack of parts, and that a majority of the remaining 60% had been "yellow tagged" - meaning they had faults that did not prevent them from flying.

You're aware, of course, that Bill Clinton changed the basic military requirement from being capable to conducting two wars simultaneously (think WWII) to conducting one war and one "holding action", and that Barack Obama eliminated the "holding action" proviso, thus further depleting the military resource pool.

So, in answer to your question - no, the Air Force can't maintain its full capabilities. Neither can the Navy - our Navy today is the lowest number of ships since 1917, and half of what it was in 1988. The Navy has 10 aircraft carriers - 7 of which are in service. Put them on a rotation, and you can cover 2, maybe 3, locations? What about North Korea? China?

No - sadly, our military is greatly diminished. We need to rebuild it.

I read some articles to back up your claim.......and indeed there is operational problems and maintenance Problems..........Out of some 5400 aircraft......you get 50% to 60% of the aircraft able to fly at any given time.............But that is still 2700 aircraft........

You are correct it's time to overhaul and replace a aging fleet of aircraft...............

So now comes the question is it fiscal problems causing so many aircraft to be down at once..........lack of spare part availability..........or maintenance personnel............or all of the above..............

Seems excessive unless the budget has been so slashed that the repairs can't be made.......

Still doesn't change my position to have forward deployed aircraft in Europe.

The Top 5 Countries with the Largest Air Forces

Even at 50% operational rate.........it would still exceed the numbers of aircraft totals to any other nations air force in the world.

It costs less to deploy an aircraft in Europe than it does in the US. It's really no more difficult than that.

Maybe you've seen the articles where the Air Force has had to cannibalize aircraft in museums in order to keep planes operational. The budget has been absolutely destroyed ...

In addition, the Continuing Resolution mode of government funding has precluded equipment purchases, personnel upgrades, etc. DoD is forbidden from using CR funds to begin development and expansion programs beyond the current level (of the last budget - even if it's 5 years old).

Now, the 2700 aircraft you mention - I won't even argue the figures with you. But, you have to keep in mind that number includes training, transportation, maintenance, and vehicles in for repairs.

I'll just quote this summary: U.S. Air Force | 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength

Due to the constrained fiscal environment of the past few years, the Air Force continues to prioritize capability over capacity. Air Force leadership has also made it clear that near-term reductions will be made in lift, command and control, and fourth-generation fighter aircraft to ensure that its top three modernization programs—the F-35A, Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), and KC-46A—are preserved.5 USAF is now the oldest and smallest in its history, and as the demand for air power continues to increase, the problem of capacity limiting capability will continue to grow.6 Unlike some of the other services, the Air Force did not grow during the post-9/11 buildup.7 Rather, it got smaller as older aircraft were retired and replacement programs, such as the F-35, experienced successive delays in bringing new aircraft into the fleet.

The Air Force’s capacity in terms of number of aircraft has been on a constant downward slope since 1952.8 As Air Force officials testified in 2016:

[P]rior to 1992, the Air Force procured an average of 200 fighter aircraft per year. In the two and a half decades since, curtailed modernization has resulted in the procurement of less than an average of 25 fighters yearly. In short, the technology and capability gaps between America and our adversaries are closing dangerously fast.9

This reduction in capacity is expected to continue because of ongoing budgetary pressure. Under BCA
Budget Control Act of 2011" class="glossaryLink ">BCA-mandated spending caps, the Air Force would shrink to 39 total active duty fighter squadrons,10 of which only 26 would be combat-coded.11 This is a far cry from the 70 active duty fighter squadrons within the Air Force during Operation Desert Storm (1991).12

This Index assesses the Air Force’s fleet of tactical aircraft based on a 2011 Air Force assessment that a force of 1,200 fighter aircraft was required to execute a two-MRCmajor regional conflict (see MTW, MCO)" class="glossaryLink ">MRC strategy.13 More recently, the service acknowledged that it could reduce the requirement by 100 fighters by assuming more risk.14 Of the 5,456 manned and unmanned aircraft in the USAF
U.S. Air Force" class="glossaryLink ">USAF’s inventory, 1,303 are fighters, 1,159 of which15 are combat-coded aircraft (not associated with operational testing, evaluation, or training of replacement pilots). The continuation of constrained funding levels will deepen the shortage of fighters and readiness levels, degrading vital air operations as well as operational testing and training expertise.16
...........................................................

In fact, we are in serious trouble. And, please don't misunderstand .. the other branches of the military are in no better condition.

 

[thanatos144]

The question is really: Can we all agree that the US doesn't need to have a dominant military presence in every corner of the globe?

Why not? You think the usa it's solders are murdering and raping and pillaging?

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk