Author Topic: U.S. Military In Europe May Change (Read 1445 times)

-ammo- · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2003, 01:53:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oedipus
"I think the US should pull out of Europe entirely. I don't see any reason that the Europeans can't defend themselves. My opinion has nothing to do with Iraq. I've held this opinion for a long time."

Ditto. I'll go further and say that IMO US forces are not needed ANYWHERE at all but at home.

Oed

I think it would be wonderful to pull everything back to within our borders. But it is very unrealistic. Unless 1) we stop caring about the affairs of our allies and other interests 2) The CIC and SECDEF decide that expeditionary AF's is not how we defend those interests. If we stop sustaining those bases, then there is no infrastructure to support a major theatre war. We are essentially back to defending our brders only. The Navy as it sits is not capable of proijecting the kind of sustained force needed to win a MTW. Counting on allied countries for the use of their bases does not give the support needed to sustain USAF weapons systems.

However, I would love to see our oversees strength significantly reduced. I saw a document recently that has some proposed base closures for the next round. There were a few oversees bases on that list. I think the ideal situation is what we have at incirlik. There is no host flying wing there. There is only a small support wing and the base is a Turk AB. All the infrastructure is there to sustain a heavy sortie rate, the personnel are deployed there for a specified time and live in a tent city (its huge). The cost of running this base has got to be MUCH cheaper than running a base like Lakenheath in the UK where there is a large composite wing.

Mini D · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2003, 01:55:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
I think the US should pull out of Europe entirely. I don't see any reason that the Europeans can't defend themselves. My opinion has nothing to do with Iraq. I've held this opinion for a long time. It's not about punishing Europeans. It's about reducing tax burden on Americans.

I agree! The only downside is that you've removed the only perk the U.S. soldier has to look forward too. No more world travel except at times and places where you really don't want to travel.

MiniD

funkedup · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2003, 01:59:40 PM »

I'm sure we would still send units over for exercises and things like Tiger Meet. But I don't think we need full strength permanent bases over there.

bikekil · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:06:37 PM »

It's interesting... actually i've head our officials saying that US and Polish goverments *were* negotiationg moving US bases here. Of course you will never hear any official confirmation till it's agreed behind the scenes.

Frankly, i would have nothing against that move IF your goverment like that option... let me explain.
First of all, we've pushed communiscit hands back some time ago (1989 officially) but some of the Soviet divisions left our country last year or two. Don't get me wrong here... i really like Russinas - all of guys i know are prima sort folks

Anyway, Russian army left their bases here... and looks like we have completely NO IDEA what to do with them... Our army don't what it (extra costs).. noone want's to buy it... so why shoudn't we give tham for the US bases?
Other thing is, that i'm not afraid here... and i don't need any kind of protection now, but who knows... maybe in future? Maybe our gov. will do the trick and our army will be as weak as most of our THE REAL FOOTBALL (soccer) league teams?

Actually i think it's connected with the "supposed to happened" Iraq war... We are giving a lot of support for that idea (actually most of us knows toejam about what's going on.. but you still have our support

). We've sent some military units there as well... letaly we've bought 40 (?) newest F16's... looks like we want to stick with US army... well... kind of...

It's all pretty interesting

Mini D · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:07:04 PM »

You only send a portion over for excercises... and you don't do that too often. Even with bases there and excercises, I'd venture that 30% of the military has not been oversees at all. They best they've done is hit some remote base either in the south or a desert.

Like I said. I do agree. It makes the most sense and saves the most dollars. There really isn't an argument against it.

Its just sad to see it cost us on of the few perks that below poverty-line military members have to look forward too. I think it would affect overall moral and would definately affect readiness. But not nearly enough to outweigh the benifits.

MiniD

bikekil · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:09:27 PM »

btw... looks like you liked our military training grouns

oh... may i have a request? IF you are here... please protect us from our politicians

thanks!

Preon1 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:10:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oedipus
Ditto. I'll go further and say that IMO US forces are not needed ANYWHERE at all but at home.

Oed

Gotta disaggree with you there. I'm a big believer in this relatively new experiment (speaking of freedom and democracy). I believe that it's in the interests of the free world to aid those who wish to join it. Finally, I'm a big believer in the idea that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Right now, the country best equipped to defend freedom is the US. I'm not saying that the US military is a tool that should be used every day. I would actually be inclined to support the accusation that the US has been taking steps towards hegemony in the last 18 months. However, the US military is the best in the world at what it does and I am inclined to believe that there are many more people whose lives are better because of America's forward deployments.

funkedup · « **Reply #37 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:12:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Its just sad to see it cost us on of the few perks that below poverty-line military members have to look forward too. I think it would affect overall moral and would definately affect readiness. But not nearly enough to outweigh the benifits.

MiniD

Hopefully with a smaller force and shorter supply lines there would be some funds for better pay and equipment and training.

Mini D · « **Reply #38 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:16:46 PM »

You'd have to have a larger National Guard force and you'd have to double (minimum) to tripple (maximum) the pay. The problem is, it ties into every other federal service job too. You'd pretty much have to completely re-vamp the pay system separating out the military and actually treating them better than most other federal employees.

From a government that has struggled to give more than a 2% raise (In any one year) to military members for nearly 20 years... I don't see it happening.

MiniD

ccvi · « **Reply #39 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:28:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
Why Bad Aibling?

Would you like me with binoculars to sit in the house over the street to yours pretendending to watch your neighbour?

-ammo- · « **Reply #40 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:34:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ccvi
Would you like me with binoculars to sit in the house over the street to yours pretendending to watch your neighbour?

I know what goes on at BA, was just curious if you did.

straffo · « **Reply #41 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:34:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
WHAT US bases in France??

AFAIK, the scurvy pinheads walked outta NATO 30 years ago, and hence there are NO US bases on French Dirt.

I'm fully aware of that

Frogm4n · « **Reply #42 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:50:25 PM »

The people that benefit the most from american base's are the prostitutes and the black market. We have no reason and no right to be in any of those countrys anymore. Its been 50 years ,and the cold war is long over.

Here is one for the cemetary comment: go read a book, learn about american history. There are plenty of french graves in this country. If it wasnt for the french we would still be a colony of the british. im not a lover of the french, but at least i know what they did for this country. Why dont you talk some crap about the poles or italians, they surrender and switch sides every war as well. Please respond to this with some inane redneck babble about white flags. It will only make you look like more of a redneck that dosnt even know his own country's history.

Udie · « **Reply #43 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:59:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
The people that benefit the most from american base's are the prostitutes and the black market. We have no reason and no right to be in any of those countrys anymore. Its been 50 years ,and the cold war is long over.

Here is one for the cemetary comment: go read a book, learn about american history. There are plenty of french graves in this country. If it wasnt for the french we would still be a colony of the british. im not a lover of the french, but at least i know what they did for this country. Why dont you talk some crap about the poles or italians, they surrender and switch sides every war as well. Please respond to this with some inane redneck babble about white flags. It will only make you look like more of a redneck that dosnt even know his own country's history.

Well we paid the sorry bastards back twice in the last century. I'd be willing to bet there are far more American graves in france than there are French graves in America.

ra · « **Reply #44 on:** February 10, 2003, 03:10:43 PM »

You preach real good Frogman. But you say America's army is rightly seen in Europe and Japan as an occupying force, so your self-described knowledge of history doesn't add up to much. And your image of French tanks cruising around Texas is a bizarre analogy. Read your history book again.

ra