Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Preon1 on February 10, 2003, 10:12:22 AM
-
Given current US foreign relations (specifically with Germany), top DoD officials are considering downgrading the current European posture of large garrison bases to smaller expeditionary bases. I see this being a big deal when it comes to future US relations (specifically with Germany). I mean, it basically means that the US is pulling out of a multi-billion dollar investment (by my rough calculations it's about 7.5 billion a year in Germany alone). What's Europe gonna think about that?
The following is an article in today’s Washington Post.
Washington Post
February 10, 2003
Pg. 16
U.S. Military In Europe May Change
Government Is Considering Revamping Structure to Reflect New Era
By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer
The United States is contemplating radically changing the nature of its military presence in Europe, moving from a "garrison" system of big, heavily staffed Cold War-era bases to a more expeditionary posture in which troops would be deployed to the continent on a rotational basis, said members of the U.S. delegation flying home yesterday from an annual conference on security issues in Munich.
The current thinking about revamping the U.S. military structure in Europe follows the transformation of the politics of NATO through the addition of 10 member nations that are taking notably pro-U.S. stances, effectively reducing the influence of "old Europe" powers such as Germany and France, delegation members noted.
If implemented, the change would be one of the biggest in the history of U.S. military bases in Europe, which dates to the end of World War II. Even discussing the shift sends the signal in Europe that the United States is ready to match changes in the alliance's political structure with changes in its military structure. Disclosure of the move also might be interpreted in Europe, especially in Germany, as a sign that the United States is exploring alternatives to its heavy reliance on Germany as the host of its core military operations in Europe.
The possible change in military structure and the strains with Germany and France were the two main subjects of conversation among the U.S. delegation to the Munich conference, whose proceedings over the weekend were marked by an unusual public clash between U.S. officials and officials from France and Germany over the Bush administration's hawkish stance on Iraq.
"It doesn't feel like it's the U.S. and U.K. isolated from Europe," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said in an interview yesterday high over the ice floes of the North Atlantic. "It seems like France and Germany are isolated from the U.S., the U.K., and the rest of Europe."
The split over Iraq is likely to produce lingering suspicion of the German government in the United States, some members of the delegation predicted. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the continued German opposition to the U.S. position on Iraq would "throw people for a loop" in his home state, where German companies have a major presence, including a BMW automobile plant.
But at the same time, Graham and other members predicted that a German desire to make amends is likely to encourage the government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to participate in postwar peacekeeping in Iraq, easing the U.S. burden there.
Several members of the delegation spoke enthusiastically at the briefing they were given by Marine Gen. James Jones, the new U.S. commander in Europe, on his preliminary thoughts about possible ways to overhaul the U.S. military presence in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. They said they expect a permanent U.S. military presence eventually to be cut from the current level of about 100,000 personnel, most of them Army.
Rather, they said Jones and other top Defense Department officials are contemplating something more akin to the U.S. presence in Kuwait, where tanks, trucks and other military gear are stored, with troops flying in to exercise or deploy with it.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of those briefed by Jones, said that the commander "envisions a transition to bases with prepositioned equipment and skeleton crews." That makeover would reduce the U.S. military presence in Europe by closing facilities such as Defense Department schools and military commissaries but ultimately might make U.S. bases in Germany more important to U.S. strategy. In a few years, some of the Pentagon officials said, the U.S. bases in Germany, England and Italy could be what the military calls "power projection" platforms from which forces could move quickly to hot spots in the Middle East, Africa or Asia. Some U.S. troops are moving from bases in Germany to the Persian Gulf region, but they are not configured for rapid deployment.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who also attended Jones's briefing, said, "He was talking about a different configuration that is more nimble and flexible."
Delegation members emphasized that the contemplated changes in force structure are not related to current U.S.-German strains. But those tensions could provoke efforts to reduce the U.S. military's reliance on its facilities in Germany, one conference participant predicted. "I think there will be a movement by some in the United States to say that the next time [there is a U.S.-German disagreement], they might not let us use the bases, so let's get a training base in Romania or somewhere," said James Steinberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.
In his briefing, Jones raised the possibility of the U.S. securing access to a new base in Eastern Europe through which it would rotate troops on training missions, said one Senate staff member who attended the briefing.
Jones took over as the top U.S. commander in Europe a month ago. He knows the continent well, having grown up in France. But as a career Marine officer he is seen as not wedded to the current structure of the U.S. military in Europe, which has been dominated by the Army since it was established as an occupation force in 1945.
-
WW2 is long time over, we dont need a occupation force any longer.
Thank you, and have a nice day ! ;)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
WW2 is long time over, we dont need a occupation force any longer.
Thank you, and have a nice day ! ;)
I think what you meant to say was: The cold war is over and a force protecting against Soviet invasion is no longer needed. Right? And I'm in full agreement.
-
Occupation force....that's cute.
Wonder what the local economies surrounding these bases will suffer when we leave....havin that cake and eaten it too has been nice eh?
-
well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.
-
I think the fella was joking. Hence the smilie.
It started as an occupation force, but soon became a mutual protection force a la NATO.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Occupation force....that's cute.
Wonder what the local economies surrounding these bases will suffer when we leave....havin that cake and eaten it too has been nice eh?
Dunno how to say that properlly (aka I'm not sure of my vocabulary) but most US bases are "self-sufficient" and I guess that some soldier didn't even get out :p
So I'm unsure of the economical impact.
I'll have to search of the impact of closure of U.S. bases in France.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Dunno how to say that properlly (aka I'm not sure of my vocabulary) but most US bases are "self-sufficient" and I guess that some soldier didn't even get out :p
So I'm unsure of the economical impact.
I'll have to search of the impact of closure of U.S. bases in France.
While many US bases are "self-sufficient" that does not mean that the people that live on them don't pour a lot of money into the local economy. I'm not just talking about the guys running the local bars. Many bases offer a lot of employment to the local community through both jobs and contracting. Very very rarely does any community want to see a nearby US base close.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.
If Mexico was the USSR and the US was a weak neighbor, but was allied with the superpower France - and I lived in Texas, I would welcome a French defensive force with open arms.
-
you obviously are not from texas.
french and mexican armys better stay the hell out.
and im a liberal the conservative texans would flip a gidget at the suggestion of such a horror.
-
Back on topic:
I see why Berlusconi's smile is soo big in the last days!!
$$$$ !!!!
;)
About the hijacking (half):
A base usually is not isolated, there is always need of houses, cars, gas, and fun places, and, why not? on local employee.
A lot of stuff comes from homeland, but AFAIK, the US payments for local services are generous.
Have a small effect of local economy, but it does, indeed, HAVE effect, specifical with small places.
I mean a little, almost unnoticable effect on a town like Naples (for example), but a bigger, sensible effect on a little city like Aviano (for example).
.
-
well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.
We won't move out entirely. We will leave our cemeteries behind.
-
Originally posted by ra
We won't move out entirely. We will leave our cemeteries behind.
Oh, please, not again...
There are cemeteries from all the countries, there.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
you obviously are not from texas.
french and mexican armys better stay the hell out.
and im a liberal the conservative texans would flip a gidget at the suggestion of such a horror.
We'd say "thanks for the tanks, but we've got ones that actually work, and by the way why do they all have white flags on top?" :D
-
There are cemeteries from all the countries, there.
There are no cemeteries in Texas for French troops who died fighting for America. It was his comparison which provoked my response. so you can relax.
ra
-
I'll have to search of the impact of closure of U.S. bases in France.
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.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Very very rarely does any community want to see a nearby US base close.
Here's 4 examples just off the top of my head: Okinawa, Philippines, South Korea, Greenham Common. This leads me to suspect that this "yankees go home" phenomenon may be less rare than you think.
-
If they close the bases who is going to show all the frauleins how real men perform? For gods sake, think of the frauleins!
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Here's 4 examples just off the top of my head: Okinawa, Philippines, South Korea, Greenham Common. This leads me to suspect that this "yankees go home" phenomenon may be less rare than you think.
Having spent several years in both Okinawa and South Korea I can say that while there are some that want us out, they are not the majority of the locals. Some in Okinawa want us out because of the enormous land value the bases occupy, especially Kadena AB.
In South Korea it is primarly the young college students that want us out. Hey, they gotta protest something right?
Anyhow, I'm all for accomodating them. So long as we don't give them aid to offset the loss to their economy as a result.
BTW, we already left the Philippines. They claimed they wanted us out when what they really wanted was to increase the rent. Now we're gone.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
If they close the bases who is going to show all the frauleins how real men perform? For gods sake, think of the frauleins!
You're not lying either! :eek:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_358876.html
German noodlees 'too small for EU
condoms'
Germany has demanded a rethink on EU guidelines on
condom size after finding its average noodle did not
measure up.
Doctors around Essen were ordered by the government's
health department to check out the average size suggested
by Brussels.
They reported the EU has overestimated the size of the
average noodle by almost 20% and insist other countries will
discover the same.
Urologist Gunther Hagler, head of the team compiling the
research, said: "By checking hundreds of patients we found
German noodlees were too small for standard EU condoms.
"On average they were 14.48 cms long and 3.95 cms wide.
That makes them much smaller than the EU standard
condom size of 17 cms in length and 5.6 cms in width."
He denied the German man was any smaller than the rest of
Europe, adding: "We think the EU has got its sums wrong,
and if other countries were to check out their men's assets
they would find the EU has made a mistake in its
calculations.
"There should be a rethink and the EU statisticians should
check their figures again. After all, they have also ruled EU
standard condoms should be able to hold 18 litres of fluid
without breaking, which also seems a bit excessive."
-
SOFA (standard of forces agreement) agreements in forein countries ensure that a large portion of jobs on US military bases are taken by local nationals. That is just one of the examples of what a forein community would lose if the US pulled out. Where GE is concerened, if we pulled out of Spang, that would take thousands of US out. However, even a constant EAF rotating would still provide a large stimulus to the economy. Back in the early 90's we closed MANY Euro bases in GE, 2 in Holland, several in UK, Spain, etc. I don't remember the local reaction as being "good riddance". Osan AB in ROK is an excellent example of a communityy that basically strives and survives on the US military presence. Another example would be Incirlik AB in Turkey.
-
...and that's a strong argument for allowing fellow citizens usage of the PX. Most of you have no idea the suffering and mental anguish an ex-pat undergoes trying to slip into a DIN 40L15 Durex. sheesh!
-
FYI The Germans occupy and operate an air base in New Mexico. They do quite a bit of training there. The local economy is the better for it. If we reduce the force structure in Europe there will be an immediate downturn in the economy where those bases are located. Even IF the troopies don't go off base much, almost ALL the supplies the base uses are on the LOCAL economy. This doesn't cover the civilian jobs that are generated by the base.
As to the "occupation force" tag being thrown around, pfueee. That is pure bovine excrement and they know it. You can call a VW a Mercedes if you want but it doesn't change the nature of the VW. Calling the U.S. forces stationed in Germany an occupation force is simply applying a lable that is not accurate. They stopped being an occupation force back in the 40's.
-
Heheheh rip.
But that study does seem to be more objective. Previous studies have been 'what's your noodle size?' to which a man is doomed to add a centimeter or´two to the truth.
German efficiency.
It's not the size that matters, but the sound it makes when it hits the ground :D
-
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 don't care about US bases in Germany.
Well, maybe except two:
- The facility in Bad Aibling.
- The airbase in Hohenfels (actually I don't care about the airbase, removing or reducing the ED-R137 would be enough. I don't like getting shot down should I get there accidentally).
-
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.
Agreed.
-
Sorry about my edit Rip. :)
-
Originally posted by ccvi
I don't care about US bases in Germany.
Well, maybe except - The facility in Bad Aibling.
-
Why Bad Aibling?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Sorry about my edit Rip. :)
Still agree!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
. It will only make you look like more of a redneck that dosnt even know his own country's history.
You're mistakenly assuming that rednecks don't know history, son. Keep in mind alot of rednecks died so you could post your opinion on this BBS. ;)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The people that benefit t....buncha stuff...flags
If you think of the french as the fb's, you'll have a lot more fun making fun of them.
F.
-
Hey Ripsnort, after this german treason, will you burn your Beemer and buy a good old pickup truck instead?
;)
The only positive thing about the belgian NATO veto this morning is that a lot more people know where is Belgium now...the price was expensive IMO.
A bit ashamed by my gov't...
-
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.
Bye-bye missile defence system.
-
Originally posted by Udie
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.
Military call that : progres
We are vastly more efficient at killing people than some century ago.
-
We are vastly more efficient at killing people than some century ago.
Whats with the "We" toejam, froggie?
;)
-
if i thought of the french as fb's that would be discourtious to the french.
-
Britain have also been withdrawing from Germany. In the last 12 years the RAF have pulled out of Wildenrath, Güttersloh, Laarbrüch and finally Brüggen therefore having no RAF aircraft in Germany.
The British Army are also pulling out. They still have a large prescence there, around 20,000, but again several garrisons/barracks are planned to close over the next few years.
-
Originally posted by bike killa
oh... may i have a request? IF you are here... please protect us from our politicians ;)
thanks!
Heck we still dont know how to protect our wallets from our politicians :)
-
Pretty much agree with Oed's last post. Heck, I do agree.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Whats with the "We" toejam, froggie?
;)
We as humanity :)
the only good side effect is the progres in traumatic surgery :(
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
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.
A quick comment:
Wait that Italy or Poland disagree with U.S. and you will see this BBS full of comments about it.
-
There is an interesting issue coming out from this usual bashing kind of thread.
The U.S. projection in the world.
It's excessive?
Granted that the old great enemy has become almost a pet friend waiting for the next dollar-cake, there's only one nation with the capability to be a threat, military speaking and terrorism apart: China.
But actually China has only a small projection capability, and only out of is own borders, more, China have some interest to remain in a "almost-no-aggressive-stance" because a growing part of it's economy is based on production and commerce in low-tech mass produced items with the western world.
Europe cannot be considered a possible enemy (aside the opinions of some posters here ;) ), looking at the interconnection between the econimics.
South America is completely under control of the USA.
Middle-east, well, while the big rich emires keep control of their respective countries, and have an advantage in the Oil commerce, no danger can rise from there, unless Israel do something mad, involving the bigger ally in something weird.
Afrika it's too busy starving.
The only remaining reasons are the U.S. interests in economical protection, and the "rogue states".
But for theese 2 menaces it's not needed an amount so huge of forces as US actually have around the world, a more thin, well equipped and higly movable force can be employed more efficiently, mantaining some smaller garrison here and there.
A lot of posters here point to the amount of taxes that can be saved by reducing the army, but there's a consequence that I dont see discussed here:
The "war" economy.
Have you an idea of how many people have his income related with the "US projection"?
Not only the soldiers, but a lot of producers, some example?
Boeing, Microsoft, Ford, all the bigger factories have a big part of their income with the military market, and I can only imagine the smaller ones.
It's something that need to be considered.
Food for tought
:)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
...Why dont you talk some crap about the poles or italians, they surrender and switch sides every war as well...
so... let me give you a lesson about Poles. we NEVER switched a side during the war... frankly all over the time we were fighting with two "nations" Germans and Russians. We NEVER surrended without a fight... and we were allways fighting till the last soldier died... during the last war we were fighting wothout ANY help form our allies (was mantioned many times on this board... i don't want to discuss it again and still have great sympathy for all those countries) till we lost3 and german and russian forces occupied us. Finally we NEVER wanted to be russian slaves, but it happened that we were sacrified after the WW2...
Now please tell me EXACLYT when we swithed a side? When we surrended?
thanks
-
Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.
Europe can't lead, saw that in the former Yugoslavia.
Can't follow, we are seeing that now.
so....leaves just one option.
-
"Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way. "
Some decades ago we had a similiar saying here in Germany:
"Fuehrer befiehl - wir folgen!"
So I think its good that at least in Germany the things have changed. Maybe because we are tired of stupid and senseless wars which will not change anything and prefer diplomatic solutions.
-
Originally posted by babek-
[B:
"Fuehrer befiehl - wir folgen!"
So I think its good that at least in Germany the things have changed. Maybe because we are tired of stupid and senseless wars which will not change anything and prefer diplomatic solutions. [/B]
Change?.......you are following Schröder into dispair
-
I didnt voted for Schroeder. Instead I voted for Stoiber and I am also a member of the CDU party in Germany.
And I dislike Schroeder and his policy very much.
But this dont mean that I believe that the Bush-regime and their war-policy are right.
So I agree with european nations like France or Germany who dont follow an automatic process which leads to a war.
Germany did this decades ago and followed a powerful leader and his regime who absolutely wanted a war. This was mistake which we shouldnt repeat.