Text 16821, 194 rader
Skriven 2011-04-13 11:29:20 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 16746 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Names will never hurt me...
===================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Tuesday April 12 2011 at 12:33:

MV> It is just as Ward said in another message. Interaction with the local
MV> economy was minimal.

MV> This "good for the local economy" is myth.

Then there must be an awful lot of idiotic Germans running around, since they
thought closing a base would have a negative effect on the local economy.

MV> That has nothing to do with anti-Americanism, it is verifiable fact.

I hardly dare to ask: "verifiable how?".

MV>>>>> The Germans were not in a postion to say "no" were they?

MV>>> Note: "were".

RB>> In this case, the "were" is quite a piece back - Germany has been an
RB>> independent, soverign country since May 5, 1955 and reunited on March
RB>> 15, 1991.

MV> So what were these "you are now leaving the American sector"signs
MV> doing in the sixties and seventies Berlin?

Until 1991, there were two Germanies, one  a soverign country (FRG) and one a
satellite of the USSR (DDR), in which political decisions often were made in
Moscow and not Berlin. I saw both. And NO, DAMMIT! - political decisions in
(West) Germany were (and are) NOT made in Washington, any more than political
decisions in the Netherlands are made in Belgium (excepting the EU <beg>).

RB>>>> Of course the could have. They're a soverign country nowadays.

MV>>> They were not when those bases were etsablished.

RB>> No, but now they could demand they be closed, and they would be.

MV> Ever heard of political pressure? I very much doubt Ramstein would be
MV> closed at a first request by the German government.

Like it or not, Michiel, Germany is a soverign country and can allow foreign
bases or demand their closure at will.

RB>> But why should they?

MV> Because they are fed up with the noise and the infringement of
MV> souvereignty?

The noise you get at any airport and there is no infringement of national
soverignty any more than at an embassy - which, by the way, can also be closed.

MV> I hope the Germans come to their senses and demand that Ramstein is
MV> closed. It is much too close to ME for comfort. I do not like living
MV> near a bull's eye.

Your problem, as long as the base is on German soil.

RB>> As mentioned above, the anti-American talk here simply doesn't
RB>> reflect the local feeling for such bases, at least not in Germany.

MV> I do not believe Germany is much different from the Netherlands in
MV> that respect. Are you trying to tell me that US military personnel
MV> based in Germany is different form US military personnel based in The
MV> Netherlands?

No, but the Dutch are different from the Germans. Of course, it's a moot point
whether your feelings (particularly the massive mistrust and dislike of things
American) are typical for the Dutch. All I can speak for is the German side.

MV> Just one more time, so that it sinks in: "Good for the local economy"
MV> is myth.

Your belief. My first-hand observations were different.

RB>> Ramstein is a large base and the medical facilities are excellent,

MV> Of course they are. If they were not so good and people would die
MV> because they could not get the treatment they could get in the US
MV> itself, their family would stop accepting that wounded soldiers would
MV> get first treatment in Ramstein instead of that they be flown directly
MV> to to the US.

Maybe you're unaware that badly wounded people sometimes need fast treatment to
stabilize their condition before they are fit to be sent on a lengthy plane
trip? That's the only explanation I have for your above comments - plus the
basic negative attitude toward American bases (_only_ American bases? and if
so, why?) in foreign countries.

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq are given as much care as possible on
the scene, and then evacuated either to Ramstein for medical stabilization if
the woulds are too serious for a direct plane trip back to the States, or if
their wounds are less serious, evacuated directly back to the States, possibly
with a refueling stop at Ramstein or another base. That's the whole story. No
nefarious plots, no nothing except medical necessities. Once badly wounded
soldiers have been stabilized to the point they can take the plane trip back to
the States, they're evacuated from Ramstein to the States.

MV> I don't buy it. Wounded soldiers are not flown to Ramstein, because it
MV> is close to the place of action, they are flown there because it is at
MV> a convenient DISTANCE from the US.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Just another conspiracy fantasy.

MV> Ramstein is a debriefing area. One may also call it "quarantine".

The former is doubtless also true in specific cases (but not for badly wounded
soldiers, who may not even be concious or able to talk), the latter is pure
fantasy. As if every soldier returning from Afghanistan or Iraq heads for the
nearest newspaper or TV station to relate his experiences the second he gets
back to the USA ;-)

RB>> Why do things the hard way when there's an easier method? I'm not
RB>> sure _what_ "hostages" you're talking about here,

MV> The people from the US embassy in Thereran that were held hostage by
MV> the Ianian government in the late 70ties.

OK, but that's a far cry from today, and that was a very special situation,
just after Koumehni had taken over the country. I'm not surprised that
intensive debriefing was necessary, and that the hostages were also monitored
for any lingering medical problems - in this case, particularly psychological
ones. They were badly stressed over a lengthy period of time, and the effects
of such treatment don't appear immediately.

I might add that I've never heard of anyone from that group claiming to have
been held prisoner by his own countrymen in Ramstein. You're seeing ghosts
again.

MV> Excuses.

Valid explanations that are only "excuses" for you since you prefer to believe
in some kind of conspiracy theory. Your privilege, but I think you're pretty
far out on this one.

RB>> "Control" in the sense of being aware of the local and regional
RB>> situation, surely true.

MV> Why do they need military basis for that?

You cut off the part about rapid response operations.

MV> An embassy should be enough to be aware of the local and regional
MV> situation. No Bob, if you need military outposts, you are out to
MV> control.

;-) Believe what you want.

RB>> As for political and military control, you must be joking. Or do you
RB>> think the massive demonstrations here against the Iraq invasion, the
RB>> lack of participation of Germany there and it's tacit alliance with
RB>> the French and Russians were all organized by the Americans using
RB>> their bases to "control" the country?

MV> Not to control Germany as such. To control the WORLD.

Jeez, Michiel, take it easy and come down a peg. This sounds positively
paranoid.

MV> As I said, they do not directly control Germany. But make no mistake,
MV> if something would happen in germany that the US does not like at all,
MV> they WILL intervene. With military force if they deem it necessary.

And that's even worse.

RB>> The Germans were enemies yesterday, friends today. Same for the
RB>> Japanese. Times change. Unfortunately, some former allies are now (or
RB>> were: think of the USSR, now Russia) enemies. It works both ways.

MV> The US has a good record of turning former allies into enemies...

You mean the reverse.

MV> Again: nonsense. Iran is over the horizon both in Germany and in
MV> Kansas. If you use over the horizon devices (read satellites) it makes
MV> no difference if you are in Germany or in Kansas.

The only problem is that you never see _everything_ with satellites - and when
and if a crisis requiring a military response arises (read up on NATO), it's
better to have some people close by than thousands of miles away, where they
can do no good whatever.

Just to finish this up, I have to admit I'm often astounded how far the
emotional pendulum in Europe has swung from the one extreme "America, our
friend and helper" (up to the 1960s) to the other extreme "America, the great
satan who does no good and much harm" (since the success of Ho Chi Minh's
propaganda in the mid to late 1960s). At some point in time, the pendulum will
swing back from such extremes and then we'll hopefully see more balanced views
again - with criticism _and_ praise where each are due. But at the moment, I
don't think anyone is particularly happy about the situation.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)