From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 14:47:29 MST
<Spudboy100@aol.com> wrote:
> Why does the USA still have troops in rich Europe?
Because it simplifies global deployment. When the USA decides to,
say, wage war in the Persion Gulf, going through Ramstein and bases
in Turkey etc provides substantial logistical savings over having
to operate all the way from the USA. The carrier fleet is handy,
but without permanent and temporary land bases all over the world
exerting force globally is hardly possible.
> Can't these people defend themselves?
Without any sort of military threat in view, that question is
difficult to answer. If I remember correctly, the last time a West
European country had to defend against military attack was in 1982
when Argentinia invaded the Falkland islands. The British managed
to take care of this on their own, without any military support
from the USA whatsoever. The Americans didn't provide as much as
satellite reconnaissance, apparently considering the attack of a
murderous military dictatorship on a close ally to be a not so
clear-cut case.
Your question seems to imply that you assume that American troops
stationed in Europe are there to defend the locals. Frankly, that
notion is so bizarre, I don't know what to say.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST