And at least Germany has COMMITTED troops to the war in Afghanistan...

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/06/ret.germany.troops/[/url]

German troops to join terror war
November 7, 2001 Posted: 1:05 PM EST (1805 GMT)






BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has offered up to 3,900 troops for the U.S.-led war on terrorism, backing up Germany's pledge of solidarity with the United States.

The offer includes help in combating nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; medical services; special forces; air transport, and naval forces to protect shipping lanes, Schroeder told a news conference.
 
He said Germany was not asked to supply air or ground forces in Afghanistan.

"The German government is convinced that we will support the international fight against terror with these measures and we will fulfill our responsibilities," Schroeder said.

"We won't forget that military measures are only a part of this fight against international terrorism. It is just as important to remember that political and diplomatic measures should be followed through, especially the maintenance of the international campaign against terror," he said.


Where is the Israeli Expiditionary Force? Or Special Units of Mossad?

S.Aug,
any introduction of Israeli forces would immediately end all assistance from Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

Bluntly, Pakistan would throw our asses out of their country over night.  (Never mind the Uzbeks and the Tajiqs and the..............)

Post from shooter69 -

Oh, pshaw, shooter69, there must be nefarious reasons for our boys to be stationed in Germany!

Just as there are nefarious reasons that we give $3 Billion in military aid to the Israelis!

Consistency is the watchword of the day!

I don't suppose any of you remember during the Vietnam War and afterwards, how the US Navy used the port of Haifa as a base?

That was back in the days we didn't give a flip what the Arabs thought about anything!

You know, when gasoline was $0.29.9 a gallon!

We could easily find another country to base our troops in much closer to home if not actually in this country.

Families wouldn't be separated, there wouldn't be a lot of friction between native populations and the service men and women, and, since so many of you resent the money thrown away on Israel...it would be a hell of a lot cheaper!

Let Europe be defended by Europeans - they did such a bang up job in Bosnia, preventing the slaughter, etc., they should be rewarded with the sole responsibility for their defense!

Just as Israel spends approx. 25% of its budget on defense, the US spends an almost equal percentage share, and yet our European allies spend what? 3-4% of their budgets on defense?

What are they waiting for? another Hitler?

Eric The(Exasperated)Hun[>]:)]

How about the reports that Israeli intelligence picked up intelligence reports about the likelihood of attacks on 9/11?  

Are we getting good intelligence from them now that they have us hating the Muslims?  Israel doesn't need to commit troops to be committed to our goals and agenda.  We should cut ties with them completely and let them fend for themselves.  How long would they last?  

Eric, no matter how many ways I look at your comments on US bases in Germany compared to 3 billion in aid, I can't see the comparison.  

Post from Minman72 -

Well, as my Oma, [b]Gretel Von Hun[/b], used to say to me:

[size=4][i]Es tut mir Leid! Das ist sehr Schade![/i][/size=4]

I [u]can[/u] see the comparison. You may have just become too accustomed to thinking that the Red Tide was gonna roll into Central Europe one day.  

I think Germany and the other European nations should pay 100% of the costs of the US maintaining its bases there.

Why not? I guaran-damn-tee that we spend more than $3 Billion a year on keeping our bases in Europe as a 'hand out' for Europeans who think we are bloodthirsty bastards that can be used to solve their problems, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, and then kindly shown the door.

At least Israel is consistently pro-US!

Eric The(ButWe'llNeverMoveThoseBases)Hun[>]:)]

I wasn't critiquing the numbers.  I intend to demonstrate here that the % spent directly in the US, whether it is 0% or 100%, is irrelevant.The "80% spent directly here" is irrelevant because [b]every dollar that leaves this country will return[/b].  It may come back directly or indirectly, now or later, but it will return.  If 80% comes back directly the other 20% comes back indirectly.  Whichever way a dollar returns it comes back in trade for US goods and services.  The only difference to individual businesses and the economy as a whole between a direct and an indirect return is whether or not the US government's influence is seen or not seen.

I claim that every dollar that leaves will return because a dollar's value is that it can be traded for American goods and services.  If couldn't be traded for American goods and services it would be worthless.  Look at it this way: suppose we gave Israel specially marked bills that could not be used by anyone to purchase American goods and services.  No matter how the money circulated it would never be used to transfer wealth (goods and services) from the US, because of this we could send [i]any[/i] amount without cost to us and thus the "money" would be worthless.

The point of all this is that 100% of foreign aid is wealth leaving the country free of charge to the receipient and the manner in which that wealth leaves, either directly or indirectly, is irrelevant.


Eric, I am also surprised that you include as "It'sOnlyFair,It'sWhatARealAmericanWouldDo!" the description of the companies involved in special interest political lobbying and living off government largesse.  I certainly wouldn't describe either as fair or something a real American would do.

Post from Francisco_dAnconia -

Well let me set your heart at ease, lover of Ayn Rand - that parenthetical remark did [b]not[/b] refer to anything in my post other than my request of SteyrAUG to research the numbers on foreign aid given by the US to the United Kingdom and France, which, quite sadly, he refuses to do even when I go to the trouble of finding references at his request.

He had mentioned something earlier about being a 'REAL AMERICAN' as opposed to my being just an American, and maybe not a REAL one at that!

That's what this meant in my post:

Just so you'd know. I was chiding him for not getting me those numbers quickly, and, finally, not getting those numbers at all.

I fear that I will not being looking up any references for SteyrAUG anytime soon, and for good reasons.

I wouldn't want you to think I was being flippant about so serious a subject.

Eric The(Earnest)Hun[>]:)]

ETH, that does set my heart at ease on that issue.

Post from Francisco_dAnconia

Good. I may be a lout, but I am not an uncouth lout!

Eric The(CouthLout)Hun[>]:)]