From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 18:53:15 MST
Damien writes
> EvMick@aol.com [writes]
> > > Why does the USA still have troops in rich Europe?
> > Good point. Why?
It *is* a good question.
> Why did Rome still have troops throughout the rich Empire?
And it deserves a serious response, which *perhaps*
this is. Rome kept troops throughout the Roman
Empire mainly to man the frontiers against incursions
from raiders.
However, Rome had in almost all cases conquered those
nations quite against the wishes of the native tribes
and population. (But in most areas, anti-Roman feeling
gave way in a generation or so, because of the peace
and security they received.)
Since the sixties, wouldn't it be incorrect to say that
British, French, and American forces were still "occupying"
Germany? And except for Germany, it would be incorrect
to suggest that American bases in Europe were obtained
by military force.
I really would like to know why American forces are
still in Europe; the Soviet Union doesn't exist any
more, and Russia no longer is so menacing.
I think that Europeans (or their governments) want
American bases in Europe, and that for some unknown
reason (to me) the Americans continue to stay. (It's
awfully expensive!) But I could be wrong.
What is the correct explanation?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST