I agree. We certainly can see that the Germans are not a threat anymore to Americans. The only time that the military complex is used in there, is when they need a place to transport wounded soldiers, before they ship them over the US.

There are many other bases that can serve that purpose. Downsize, just like the rest of us!

"We certainly can see that the Germans are not a threat anymore to Americans"

Uhm, we weren't there because of the GERMANS. We were there because of the Soviets.

Dave is right Irespond, learn a little background about the situation so you don't look the fool.

bring the legions home, we can no longer afford to protect these country's it has drained our Treasury(Roman Senate 400 A.D.)

*Dave and Jake

We WERE there because of the Germans. We were there to fight the Germans in the 1940's and then to defend the Germans throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

Calling somone a fool when you are dead wrong is ...foolish.

OBX, I know this is way off the subject of the article but, I really get annoyed when the only thing someone can commit to one of these threads is a poorly thought out political comment that adds nothing to the conversation. Just for the record, WWI began with a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, in office. WWII began with a Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, in office. The occupation of Germany, Italy and Japan began with another Democrat, Harry Trueman, in office. The Korean war also began with a Democrat, Harry Trueman in office. Eisenhower, a Republican, sent the first advisers to Vietnam but, it was Kennedy, and later Johnson, both Democrats, who really ramped up the war.

Wars, their causes and results, aren't just a Republican domain and, I am sure that Halliburton, Blackwater, and most of the other big defense contractors have hedged their bets with large contributions to Democrats as well as Republicans.

As for the Soviets no longer being "a land threat", I guess you're right because there is no longer a Soviet Union. Whether or not the Russians are a land threat, I guess you would have to ask Georgia and Chechnya.

It's a shame that you never got to know the German people. The older Germans are so appreciative of the liberation that the allies brought to them. To Bad you never got out of the Koncern. The German people are wonderful open hearted folks, who are willing to pour their heart out to anyone willing to extend a welcome hand.

I enjoyed Christmas Eve,Christmas dinner and day, New years and various other days with two German family's, became friends with a number of German folks. To bad you never got to know them.

Dave DeShazo,

Not certain that is directed at myself. But for the record, I was in the military and did get to know the German people a bit. And what you state is 100% correct. They appreciate Americans. They remember what we did for them after The War.

thestuffmaker25:

We haven't been in Germany because the Germans were a THREAT for a very long time. We were there for so long because the SOVIETS were a threat to all of Western Europe, not just Germany.

Dave was clearly referring to sources of threat, not threatened areas.

Dave and Jake are right. Don't be so contentious or so quick to call someone's post foolish.

@thestuffmaker25, while I agree that it is not nice to call people names, you are the one, who is essentially wrong. Sure, we were there initially due to WWII and the Germans, but having served in Germany as a Russian linguist, I can assure you that we stayed due to the Soviet Union, which was considered our major world threat since 1945, when WWII ended.

People in those over seas bases should realize they would close bases..right here in the USA they closed two Forts in my area three years ago..over 5,200 civilian jobs lost. Think its called BRAC.

Time to take care of a REAL THREAT: Mexico!

"In the spirit of that: Republicans, you can go pound sand."

You had me... until I read that. Had to spoil your point by making it partisan, didn't you?

And what's with some of the msnbc articles recently? You get the first sentence, then the rest of it vanishes. I assume there's more to this article than the guy tending flowers?

In 1989, I lived in a town that had a large Army and Air Force presence. One of those bases had been around since 1913! The word came down that the first Air Force base was closing, a year later the Army announced they were pulling out too, and within 5 years, the last AF base announced closure. Thousands of jobs for the local community were lost. Real estate values plummeted, small businesses closed, and we are still struggling after 20 years to recuperate from the loss.

Oh, and where was this? Sacramento, California. Bring our troops home.

I lived in Germany during the 80s and remember massive anti-military protests. It was unnerving to hear "Ami, Go Home!" However, the majority of Germans appreciated America's presence...even though it wasn't always easy to have lots of soldiers in town. All what happened, the destruction of Nazi Germany, the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, and the emergence of a new Germany bound our two countries. It was, for the most part, a relationship of mutual respect. Germany is a model democracy and a prosperous free nation. To both Germany and to the US military...I would like to say, mission accomplished!

During the Potsdam conference in 1945, Germany was divided into 4 occupation zones...one British, one French, one American and one Soviet. The purpose of this was not to "check" the Soviets, but to prohibit Germany from ever being a threat to Europe...period. The occupation of Japan was the same complete with American bases, some of which are still there, and troops.

As the peace evloved into the Cold War we used these bases, as well as other bases around the Globe, to maintain American Power and to meet obligations for countless European agreements for the protection of Free Europe against Germany or any other threat (which did become Russia over time).

To suggest we were in Germany because of Russia is simply false.

To suggest we were in Germany because of Russia is simply false.

That is incorrect.

@thestuffmaker25, it is hard to take your "arguments" seriously since you make them so badly, and have such GLARING errors. First, Germany was not divided at Potsdam; it was divided at Yalta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference#Key_points

Second, while the official reason of these treaties was to deal with post-war Germany, to think that Britain and the U.S. were not already primarily concerned with Stalin and the U.S.S.R. is VERY naive, and shows that you lack a knowledge of history. Not "period", as you state. The Cold War was deemed to start no later than 1947.

Lastly, again, it is hard to take you seriously when you refer to the 1945-era country as "Russia". It was the Soviet Union, and if you think there is no difference, well, that says a lot too.

We may have initially been in Germany due to WWII, but almost immediately, it transitioned to the Cold War, and the Soviets.

I was in Germany from 1997 to 2001. I was with the 82nd Engineer Battalion in Bamberg, Germany. One time the vehicle that I was riding in broke down so I am three others were stuck until a recovery assest arrived. At first I didnt know what the Germans thought about American troops being there until one lady came out with cups of coffee and food, the the children came out to take a look at us and the equipment that we were carrying. They turn out to be very nice, sweet people afterall. I dont remember the name of the town in Germany but I know that in order to get there you have to drive up a narrow hill to get there. Then again 99% of the roads in Germany are narrow.

I spent three years there. I didnt even want to be in Germany and tried to see if I could get the orders recinded to no avail and wound up going there. But after a while I got used to the place and one day, I would like to visit Germany only this time as a tourist.

Oh if anyone who reads this from the 82nd Engineer Battalion "Blue Babe sir!" and tell me where I can get the minature version of the unit crest.

Thank you!

To use "Soviet" (especially as a reference to the USSR)and "Russia" interchangeably is wrong and certainly calls into question the credibility of the rest of the comment.

Kevin

"At the Potsdam Conference (July 16 to August 2, 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945,^[1] the Allies divided "Occupation Zone Germany" into four military occupation zones—French in the southwest, British in the northwest, United States in the south, and Soviet in the east."

Wiki History of Germany 1945-1990

It was discussed throught the waining years of the war but finalized at Potsdam.

I completely understand what you are trying to suggest regarding using bases in Germany as a deterent to Soviet Russia (and I most certainly understand the difference). But we were in Germany to first kill them and then keep them from every gaining power enough to threaten Europe again.

If the Government don't spend it, they can't justify taxing for it..

This country was THE world power in the 40's & 50's with out the tax burdens we have today.

It's about time. We need to bring our troops home from bases throughout the world and stop subsidizing the defense costs of foreign nations.

Kevin

Your suggestion that I don't understand how the end of WW2 played or the subsequent cold war is an insult. You failed to refer to Germany as Nazi Germany though I assumed you knew the difference. I most certainly understand the difference between Russia and Soviet Russia however felt no need to identify them as such.

We are splitting hairs with this...The USA was in Germany because of Germany and if you know your history then you know that we let the Russians (Soviets, Stalin, Zhukov) take Berlin though Patton was already outside the City. I most certainly know the distrust many American Generals had of the Russians at the end of WW2 however that was NOT the reason we were in Germany. And while we used those bases as a projection of power against the Russians throughout the Cold War, we used many others including wars in Korea,Vietnam and Afganhistan to project power against Communism, Soviets, Russia, ect.

I get the point you are trying to make however I stand by my point that we occupied, and still do, bases in Germany because of the Germans. Just as we do in Okinawa because of the Japanese...not the Russians or South Korea because of the North Koreans not just the Chinese and Russians.

I was a paratrooper stationed in Italy, but we went to Germany on a regular basis. I learned enough German to order food, and get directions. I never experienced anything negative from the Germans, or the Italians. In fact, they appreciated us being there. Most people in both countries had a working understanding of English. It was a wonderful thing to be there. But, the time to draw back has arrived. We will still hopefully still keep some troops there, but our national debt demands cutbacks everywhere possible. I do want everybody to know that I appreciate the treatment I recieved in Germany, Austria, Begium, England, and Italy. I hope to go back to visit these wonderful countries, and people some day.

Soviet Russia (and I most certainly understand the difference).

Doesn't seem like you do. Soviet Russia and the USSR are NOT the same thing!

If you know your history then you know that we let the Russians (Soviets, Stalin, Zhukov) take Berlin though Patton was already outside the City.

If you knew your history, you'd know that Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili) was NOT Russian. He was Georgian. You TOO would also know that "Russian" and "Soviet" are NOT interchangeable terms!

Germany is HQ for AFRICOM, there will be a US presence there for a long time. Ramstein is alot closer than the US. How many lives saved coz of this? MANY. Out of ATO in 24 hours, even less time. The military will be in the ME, SW Asia for years to come. Some facilities aren't needed anymore, this is true.

Beth-440386:

100% correct. Russia was just one of many countries within the Soviet Union. Russia was the lead country and the largest by land mass.

AG99,

It would appear that you can't see sarcasm if it clubbed you on the side of the head. The comment was in "jest" and the smiley face after it is evidenced of that. However, what I am about to post here is also in jest.

Open your wallet and spend a dollar to buy a clue. It might even be tax deductible. :-) <-smiley face

Get it?

@beth-girl, you gotta calm down. I think thestuffmaker25 understands the difference and wasn't intending to insult you (which, judging by your reaction, he must have). I think he was just going for the shorthand version, instead of saying soviet russia, he just said russia. and btw, while, of course, "russia," "U.S.S.R.," and "soviet russia" are not interchangeable and are different entities, the fact remains that one territory remains at the center of all three, that being russia. this is why people shorthand russia when talking about any of the three. again, don't post back and start lecturing me on the differences. I know. I'm just explaining this to you to try to help.

Just Wondering Aloud, that's all fine and well. However, Germans care about their country too. In fact, fervent nationalism was one of the factors that contributed to Hitler's rise to power.

We should close the installations. Countries do not give a s#$t about the US until they're no longer the recipient of our generosity. Next, stop handing billions of dollars to Egypt and Pakistan.

What difference does it make why we were there? The big picture and I think both sides of the aisle should cheer this, is that we will be saving money by downsizing. We simply cannot sustain a vast military presence around the globe. The more we save the more work we can do here on our infrastructue. I would rather drive on a safe bridge here in the US then have us repairing roads and such in other countries, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, UK and many more. Not sure if it would be wise to completely elliminate troops from certain areas but we are stretched way too thin.

It is nice to know that Americans were appreciated at the military installations in Germany and other foreign bases. Yes, it is sad for the local people that had a job and/or a relationship with the Americans. Any long term relationship that is ending is difficult to adjust to whether it was favorable or not. I hope the German gardener can come to terms with our leaving;he spent his entire life with us.

You people remind me of nagging wives. Soviet... Russia... USSR...bla bla bla. The corespondent on fox news who said anyone who posts on these sights is an idiot was right. If you were a news watching adult during the 80's and 90's you know what happened. Signing off.. one less idiot online.

For those debating the reason we were in Germany I give you a portion of the speech that explains our reason.

Speech by J.F. Byrnes,
United States Secretary of State
Restatement of Policy on Germany
Stuttgart
September 6, 1946

But the question for us will be: What force is needed to make certain that Germany does not rearm as it did after the first World War? Our proposal for a treaty with the major powers to enforce for 25 or even 40 years the demilitarization plan finally agreed upon in the peace settlement would have made possible a smaller army of occupation. For enforcement we could rely more upon a force of trained inspectors and less upon infantry.

For instance, if an automobile factory, in violation of the treaty, converted its machinery to the production of weapons of war, inspectors would report it to the Allied Control Council. They would call upon the German Government to stop the production and punish the offender. If the German Government failed to comply then the Allied nations would take steps to enforce compliance by the German Government. Unfortunately our proposal for the treaty was not agreed to.

Security forces will probably have to remain in Germany for a long period. I want no misunderstanding. We will not shirk our duty. We are not withdrawing. We are staying here. As long as there is an occupation army in Germany, the American armed forces will be part of that occupation army.

Tiredofhypocrites, learn a little history would you. Blaming Wilson for WWI and Roosevelt for WWII is just plain stupid. Maybe just maybe Kaiser Wilhelm, Czar Nicholas, the Serbian Intelligence Service, and Emperor Franz Joseph were much more the cause of WWI. The failure of the European and American leaders (GOP lead) to listen to Wilsons post war plans, HITLER, MUSSOLINI, HIROHITO/the Japanese military and the GOP caused depression had much more to do with the cause of WWII. Your logic is correct in one aspect the Great Depression and our current depression were started while a Republican was in office. The Great depression saw the GOP in office from 1921 until 1933. With Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover in office. The current mess was started during Bush's administration (two terms) from 2001 to 2009.

Beth, everyone realizes that "Russia" and "U.S.S.R." are not technically interchangeable, but it has always been common in my lifetime to use them that way colloquially. In fact, why can we not refer to Союз Советских Социалистических Республик as "Russia" in English, the same way that Deutschland is "Germany" and 中华人民共和国 is "China" in English?

Along slightly different, but similar lines, do you always say "The United States of America"? People commonly use simply "U.S.", "America", "The States", "Washington", etc. to mean this country. They often say "English" to refer to someone who could be from Scotland or Wales. My daughter lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a couple of years, but almost nobody refers to the country by that full name. I told people she was in Bosnia, although technically she was in the Herzegovina part of the country.

RE;

OBXRon Comment collapsed by the community

Dave and Jake are both right .............but is it right to be there so long after the Soviets stopped being a land threat to another country? Why do we have to invade and settle into the countries we had a war in?...........Oh I guess we just print more money, elect Republicans and start new wars so the economy and their friends in Halliburton can continue to pay their servants.

1. James Polk-Mexican War-democrat
2. WW1-woodrow wilson-democrat
3. WW2-FDR-democrat
4. Korean War-Harry Truman-democrat
5. JFK-Vietnam War-democrat
6. Clinton-Operation Restore Hope(Somalia)-democrat
7. Clinton-Operations in Kosovo/Bosnia-democraT

And you have the nerve to call republicans warmongers.

Hello dadoftim, your right both parties have been warmongers. In our short history, we have bombed over 65 countries. We have been a county for almost 236 years and have been at war for 216 years. Nothing to be proud of is it?

We've been there so long because once we go in we can never get out. Part of the reason is explained in this article, and that is the financial impact on an ally. The civilian jobs are only one part of the economy around a base and the spending by the military in the local market.

Now the US is in need of a Marshall Plan, but there is no other country to do such a thing for us. We need to do nation-building right here at home. Those civilian jobs overseas are why we can't hire teachers in our schools. People talk about how Germany is doing so well, and rightwingers like to claim it is due to austerity -- It's not, and it started with the Marshall Plan.

Cut defense spending, especially where it is obsolete. This is a day late and a dollar short, and should have been done decades ago. And then make the tax code more fair--Enough of the Romneys in our country paying less than a 15% tax rate and sheltering money offshore.

Once again, we can applaud President Obama for ending wars and consolidating bases. The Republican neocons wouldn't (we're not talking about eons ago when they still had some sanity). As for Romney, he thinks we're still in the Cold War, so would probably expand that base in Germany.

Let's get our priorities in order. Heck, it's at the point of triage. Obama/Biden - 2012!

Dadoftim, Panama? Grenada? Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan? Operation Ajax?, Operation Pbsuccess?, Domino theory?,Operation Blue Bat?, Operation Castor?,Operation Menu?,Beirut barracks bombing?,1986 Bombing of Libya?, Operation Restore Hope?, etc etc etc

Beth, everyone realizes that "Russia" and "U.S.S.R." are not technically interchangeable,

Actually, not. And that is patently obvious. (Just look at the person who called Stalin a Russian.)

That's why, if we were given the opportunity to go to the Soviet sector of Berlin, we were lectured AT LENGTH over the difference. Many Soviets found it highly insulting to be referred to as "Russian" ... especially considering they might have been, Georgian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, etc.

Beth: Do you demand to be called a Floridian? Or a Washingtonian? Or an -ian from whatever state you're from? I doubt it. I bet you would rather be called an American. But I could be wrong, you could be one of those neo state's rights people and prefer to think of your state before your country. And if you do, that's fine. But the fact is, Stalin was the dictator of the Soviet Union who's largest contributor (And, coincidentally, where it was governed from) WAS RUSSIA. Stalin lived in Russia. Stalin worked in Russia.

Defense cuts are not a debatable issue. We are broke. The politicians know it but don't want to say it clearly because once you realize Congress can no longer promise to give something in exchange for voting for them, there is little reason to vote for them. Being truthful about our solvency gets in the way of buying votes with unfunded promises. Here is something to consider.

There are two kinds of debt - liquidity issues debt and solvency issues debt.

Liquidity issues debt is solvable with more debt. This is the type of debt that more debt will fix because in a liquidity issue problem, you need more time but you are able to handle the current and added debt. Just borrow more and roll the old debt into new debt and the problem is kicked down the road. An example of liquidity issues debt is our national debt - now about 16 trillion dollars - which is up from 1 trillion in 1982 which took 206 years to incur I might add. Now, we add a trillion dollars of new debt in just 8 months. Still, the treasury debt is just liquidity debt and printing more money and borrowing more can delay the ultimate solution because there is nothing that says the treasury debt has to be paid by date certain. Therefore, all we need is more time.

Now let's look at solvency issues debt. Solvency issues debt can not be solved by borrowing more because the entity that is insolvent already can not pay the current debt, and adding more debt only adds to the amount of insolvency. Solvency issues debt is resolved by default and nothing else. You might want to call it "restructuring" or "voluntary write off" or "entitlement modification" or whatever, but in the end, default is default. A good example of solvency issues debt is the "unfunded entitlements" as politicians like to refer to them, but actually, social security was funded and therefore not so much an entitlement but more so a savings vehicle, except Congress over the years changed it, raided the trust funds that had been collected, spent those funds on something else. Congress has even taxed us on the money deducted from our pay as though we actually got it (thanks to Mr. Al Gore - idiot), so the payments into social security have already been taxed as well as paid. Getting back on subject - I refer to the entitlements as solvency issues debt becasue of simple math. There is currently 35 trillion dollars of unfunded social security benefits accrued and about 45 trillion dollars of unfunded medicare benefits. These two add up to 80 trillion dollars of unfunded promises. Now remember, a default is basically a broken promise by another name. These 80 trillion dollars of unfunded benefits have to be paid over the next 30 years. Unlike the liquidity issues debt of the treasury debt, you cannot roll over the entitlement payments and not pay them. They have to be paid.

So here is the simple math that Congress does not understand. When you divide the 80 trillion dollars of unfunded promises by the 30 years allowed to make payment, you arrive at a figure of 2.7 trillion dollars per year just for the now unfunded promises. Now consider that all Federal taxes currently collected add up to about 2.5 trillion dollars per year and you see the dilemma. The existing solvency debt is now more than all taxes currently collected, and we are currently spending 1.5 trillion more per year than we are collecting now, even before making all of this added 2.7 trillion per year in these two "entitlements". Who is going to buy the additional solvency debt so it can be turned into liquidity debt? The answer is no one. Our interest rates will go ballistic long before that occurs and our currency (it is not money) will become nearly worthless while more and more of the taxes have to be funnelled to interest on debt.

Imagine 5% interest on the 20 trillion we will soon owe. That is 1 Trillion per year in interest or 1/3 of all taxes collected. Convert the unfunded "entitlements" into treasury debt and you will have 100 trillion dollars of treasury debt. 5% interest on that would be 5 trillion per year in just interest before you pay the 2.7 trillion per year in entitlements, meaning you will need taxation at a level approaching 7.7 trillion per year to just fund interest payments and entitlements and we are now at 2.7 trillion. Do you think an economy will survive at our current tax rate times 3? No. It won't. Again, this is simple math.

So back to the subject of this article, the defense cuts - we have no choice. We are heading into an era of protracted high unemployment that will last for decades, thanks to Congress and the drunken spending spree Congress has been on for the last 40 years. You can't blame Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama for the spending. Spending is in the realm and control of Congress and no one else. It has been Congress, in an effort to support one party over the other, that has tried to buy votes with taxpayer money by saying "vote for me and I will give you this or that "for far to long. This is not a Republican nor Democrat issue. Both parties have consistently done this to America.

So we now find ourselves in the situation of being financially vulnerable which translates into being militarially vulnerable because like Rome of two milennia ago, we can no longer affored to field our troops in other countries.

I want all of you to remember this in November. The only logical solution is to Fire Congress by never voting for an incumbent. And you might want to read Washington's farewell address to the people to learn (or remember if you got a decent education before the Department of Dummification dumbed down education) what Washington said about political parties. Washington warned us that political parties were more dangerous to a Republic than anything else. We failed to listen to Washington and now we have caused exactly what he said would happen.

Bottom line is this. Military cuts are coming because we cannot afford to not cut and cut deeply, just as we will cut deeply in many other places, and just as we will certainly default on many of the promises made. These cuts and defaults will result in a big reduction in collective discretionary incomes which will result in a large reduction of demand, hence long term job reductions. This will last for at least 30 years unless we default big now, and if we did that, the economy would simply crash. Thank you Congress you bunch of self serving idiots. You have killed us economically. You are fired. God I hope so.

Now that we've spent 67 years rebuilding countries all over the world is anybody interested in pulling us ouut of the hole we've gotten ourselves in?

KarlStevens: you need to rethink that one! All the money saved by bringing home every troop from around the world will NOT be saved; it will only be piddled away on more social programs. Nothing will be spent on infrastructure that is crumbling; only the poor, huddled masses that continue to suck up welfare dollars that are desparately needed to support the ability of working people to get to work to pay the taxes to fix the infrastructure...Well, I think you should get the point!

#1.7 tiredofhypocrites-794827-

Talk about a poorly thought out political comment that adds nothing to the story but your embarassment. Right up till about the time of Kennedy and Johnson the Democrats were more like the Republicans of today and vise-versa. This is well established fact among political historians.

You partisan heads get in trouble every time you try and use your divided brain.

Bob-

"Suck up welfare dollars"? Every dime in the US winds up in some business persons pocket. Not a penny is sucked up into oblivion in a parallel Universe, never to be seen or heard from again. So few ever think of the full cycle of economics. "OMG, Bazillions of tax revenue was spent on project X..." And that means plenty of businesses on the contract reaped more profits and should have hired more people. People on welfare spend their money somewhere, you know. Productivity? Actually try explaining that one all the way through. Productivity means nothing if there's not enough volume of consumers to buy the product or service. Go ahead and crank out Widgets till your warehouse is full, it all adds up to nothing or is of zero profit, thus is not really, "productive", Boss. Conservatives only go about half way with their brains and just can't seem to complete the logic loop. Why? Because it would prove how stupid and wrong they really are.

Beth: Do you demand to be called a Floridian? Or a Washingtonian?

Not an apt analogy at all. If I was from Florida, I certainly wouldn't want to be called a "Washingtonian". I wouldn't mind being called an American because I am an American.

As to Stalin, where he worked (or ruled) had nothing to do with the fact that he was BORN in Georgia and, in fact, didn't even learn to speak Russian until he was forced to in school. Let's use your less-than-apt analogy. The president was born in Hawaii, he works in Washington because he's the president. Does that make him a "Washingtonian" (albiet the DC variety). Of course not.

Devil's, believe me, I do know my history. I have even taught history. I never blamed ANYONE for any war. If you would please go back and reread my comment, I said that democrats were IN OFFICE when those wars began. In every case, there was an incident (or incidents) that lead up to the President's decision to go to war. Each time, there were people for and against the wars. Whether of not, the decision was correct, is up to history. Sometimes, determining whether is was a good decision or not can take a very long time. Trying to blame any one party for a war is very short sighted. People who say that the military/industrial complex, which many seem to believe is totally republican, is why were went into the middle east and why we are still there have forgotten that there are some who believe Roosevelt, a democrat, got into Lend-Lease and, eventually, WWII to bolster business in an effort to pull us out of the Great Depression.

My point was not to say Republicans are without blame in any of this. The fact is, there is enough blame to go around on both sides. If you try to make the Republicans (or the Democrats) the scapegoat on any of this, then you are part of the problem. If we want to get out of the current financial and political mess we are in then BOTH parties need to start working together to do so.

I get really annoyed when someone tries to derail one of these discussions with poorly thought out or irrelevant comments. The article here is about base closures in Germany and their impact on their communities. Base closures and consolidations have been going on for years, through both democratic and republican administrations. OBX was making an attempt to hijack the comments with anti-republican comments, when this has nothing to do with republicans. Had he said the same thing but used democrat instead of republican, I would have made a similar comment because this has nothing to do with democrats.

VietNam was started because of American support to the SOUTH Viets resultant from EISENHOWER's actions after Dien Bien Phu.

canary,

Eisenhower sent "advisers", Johnson sent "combat troops", try reading some actual history instead of DNC "talking points".

Canary, Lyndon Johnson started the Viet Nam war without getting approval from congress. Go to NPR Walter Cronkite, Gulf of Tonkin,you can hear a chilling taped telephone call between LBJ and Robt. MacNamara. How Ike handled Viet Nam was the same way JFK did. The difference between IKE and LBJ are one is a Military Genius while the other a mere Liberal Democrat bumbling idiot!

Romneyismynightmare said:

"What difference does it make why we were there? The big picture and I think both sides of the aisle should cheer this, is that we will be saving money by downsizing."

I wish that it were so.

The reality of it is that no money will be saved by this or any other base closures or reductions in force. The money "saved" will either be spent elsewhere by the Dept. of Defense or on some other program by some other governmental entity.

I think that all of us realize that both sides of the aisle will be involved in this as well.

The bases in Germany are crucial to our current war in Afghanistan. Landsthul medical center is the first stop for our casualties coming back from there. The airbases in Germany are also crucial. A presence in Europe is vital as we don't actually have the capability of waging war overseas without them. You are very wrong to think that we could wage anything except a long range strategic bomber strike, or ICBM strike from the US without the support bases that we have around the world.

A presence in Europe is vital as we don't actually have the capability of waging war overseas without them

Oh Yes! We can. There a base in Spain that can consolidate all the services of all the others. Most of the time they are only a transiet place.

We shouldnt be IN Afghanistan or Iraq, Old Sarge! We shouldnt be threatening Iran, N.Korea or China. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize should mail back his medal - he is anything but peaceful! We are spending 2 billion a week in Afghanistan. 2 BILLION a week!! 800,000 of it is borrowed from China every week. Americans need taxpayer money to go towards Americans for once, Mr. O.

I'm sure when Bush started all this war nonsense you were right at the front with those same arguments....

Ru780672: You have a very short memory. GWB got us into Iraq & Afghanistan. You repubs right wingers have a very short memory on who is doing what in Washington.

To all who said BUSH got us into this! Damn what a short term memory y'all have!!!! WHO ran jets into the Twin Towers? WHO ran a jet into the Pentagon? WHO also planned to run a jet into the US Capitol building but was thwarted? WHO!!???? Hint: it was NOT George H.W. Bush! Yes we will need those bases if Middle East NUTS do this again! I do hope there is another base in Europe we can use.

All we need to do to rectify the downsizing of our troops and closing un-needed military bases is to elect a conservative president and a conservative congress in November.

That will fix that! (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb ... Bomb Iran!)

Sarcasm at it's best!

Again I respond, a little research would treat you well. Spain is in Europe.

Texas Grace.....Yes those things did happen. But Iraq was NOT part of it. The issues are can we afford it? I submit to you that we cannot. The days of American Hegemony are over with. We cannot pay for it. I was in Germany during the Reagan years. Our footprint was HUGE over there. Now that the cold war is over, there is NO NEED for it with the exception of a few Airbases and one or two Army posts. We can go and train there anytime we want, the Germans are tight allies.

As far as the "Middle East Nuts" I would imagine you are referring to Islamic Extremists? Well, they're not flying bombers, they do not have landing craft ready to hit the East Coast beaches, and they are involved in a different sort of warfare compared to the cold war. The maintaining of all of those facilities is a drain on the Military and they need to save too.

Texas grace,

Well, that explains why we're in Afghanistan. Now how about Iraq?

You all seem to think that a person can't be anti-obama and anti-bush. If you actually care about peace, you should be against both, since both have advanced the same warmongering agenda. It's the folks who still think there is a difference between republicans and democrats who need to take a long hard look at whom they are supporting. Bush and Obama are both puppets of the same Rothschild controlled warmongering regime. Texas Grace you need to do an internet search on the pentagon and 9/11 and you will quickly see that there is no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon (no photographic evidence, no nearly indestructible plane engine, and the damage done is consistent with a missile not a plane, Bush may not have flown a plane into the pentagon, but that's only because the supposed maneuver the "pilot" who "did" was nearly impossible. Those "middle east nuts" couldn't have done it either. And no one is claimed to have flown a plane into World Trade Center 7, please do a search for WTC7. My main point is that both "sides" of your supposed debate are right. Obama is a warmonger. Bush was a warmonger. Now stop assuming someone is wrong just because he is wearing the opposing team's colors. We are being played by our government, and we are being played by our media with disgusting articles like this that make our military presence overseas seem like a good thing. How about we try listening to our hearts for once instead of to the media or to our fears? Everybody is so busy being anti-leftist or anti-conservative and thinking up cute derogatory names for people (like "tea-baggers" or "feminazis") that you can't see the massive tyranny being constructed by both the dems and the reps. You all need to go to infowars.com or some other media outlet somehow vaguely connected with journalism, unlike MSNBC.

Get real! We don't have the capability to do anything more than project power that is laughed at by most of our enemies. Do you really think we are going to win in Afganistan or Iraq or Iran or anywhere else for that matter in the long run? Study your history. Since Vietnam this nations military has morphed into more of a constabulary force that fights only when our dumb-ass politicians (most of whom have never been in uniform) think they can pick a fight without having anyone come home in a body bag. Yea, right. Our young men and women ride around getting blown up by IED's while illiterate locals sit around waiting for us to leave so they can pick up right where they left off before we showed up. Since WW2 we have had 1 draw, 1 loss, a few lop-sided fights with Caribean despots and a couple of "wars" in the Middle East that I would'nt even call wars. A WAR is something you win or don't start to begin with. It has nothing to do with "nation building" or "partners in peace". We've have lost track of this concept in lieu of techno crap and progessive views that we don't need people any more to project power - just drones. Excuse me while I puke. As for the Germans, they should have realized that over-priced rents for our bases there, labor unions forcing us to hire thousands of local nationals over american's with benefit packages that were better than the Greeks - on OUR dime, absurd environmental constraints, intrusive BS on anything we wanted to do in terms of restructuring our bases etc would finally come to a head - and it has. Let's see how they do without us there, even though we SHOULD be THERE because it's easier to keep Moscow and Beijing in check overseas than from D.C. - where our POTUS and much of COngress have all "checked" their brains into the cloak room. They are almost as stupid as people that continue to blame Bush for wars after WE were the one's attacked and threatened by an individual that we DID'NT have the guts to remove in 1991 any more than we have the guts to secure out borders. The Chinese are winning; the fundamentalists that want to see us go away and that will probably get some dirty bombs across out borders are winning; the Russians are expanding; and much of the world is saying screw you to the USA while our POTUS is getting photo-ops and more concerned with gay marriage and left-wing, media approved crusades. Enough said. We deserve whatever we get.

Doofuses, what base do we have in Spain? Those were closed in the 90's. Most of the the posters on here haven't a clue about anything.

Again I respond, a little research would treat you well. Spain is in Europe.

Uhm, we weren't there because of the GERMANS. We were there because of the Soviets.

Well, Having a good time "correcting" Me? Thanks! I knew that Spain was in Europe. If you read my post it says "CONSOLIDATE". If history is correct, we were in Germany because of the Nazis first..Remember? ok...You are talking about cold war..BUT WE WERE THERE DURING WORLD WAR II first.

I guess you jump to correct others, but you really need to learn to read.

@ Chris-335678

Its called Naval Station Rota Spain.

Whose the doofus now?

Tea you are right and Chris is the doofus!

Ryan, we were in Iraq because a dictator had invaded a small, oil rich neighboring country (Kuwait) and would not obey the rules (no fly zones) THE WORLD imposed on him when he was pushed out. We nipped that problem in the bud, as we should have nipped a certain German dictator in the 1930s. That taught us that waiting too long could cause real problems for the whole world.

If someone had to make up a story about weapons of mass destruction to accelerate the finishing of the job, I DON'T CARE! Saddam Hussein needed to go and I doubt very many people ANYWHERE would like to have him back. I would like to have back the Americans lost there. They were all volunteers, and they are all heroes for freedom. They have made the world a better place than it would otherwise be. That is worth fighting and dieing for.

Our footprint in Iraq now is small, only about 4000 or so, if I am not mistaken. What a republican administration started, with democratic support, was completed by a democratic administration with republican support. Iraq is now a struggling fledgling democracy where there was once a cruel and aggressive dictator in a part of the world that is vital to our economy and the economy of the ENTRIE WORLD.

The people of Iraq are now free to choose their own destiny.

@Joe,

Spot on, so many people forget their history. Was in Desert Storm and had to deploy two more times in support of the no fly zone. He need to be taken out, period!

The airbases in Germany are also crucial. A presence in Europe is vital as we don't actually have the capability of waging war overseas without them

while I disagree that not having European bases would eliminate our ability to fight wars overseas (although it would reduce it), I also have to wonder, is not being able to fight anyone everywhere instantly and all the time actually such a bad thing? perhaps some delay would reduce the tendencies of some hotheaded fools to just shoot first and ask questions later at anyone that looks at us cross eyed

And who are we to need a vital presence everywhere for the capability of waging a war? Do you even realize what you are saying? And are you surprised that the world regards us as warmongers?

Listen to all the neocun+s and libtards going back and forth. The fact of the matter is both parties have supported an aggressive interventionalist foreign policy for decades. A policy which has costed us trillions and tens of thousands of soldiers' lives. It's not going to stop until the people say enough is enough. The time for revolution is now.

Joe S. you seem to be confusing Gulf War 1 (what was fought under the term of HW Bush), with Gulf war II... Our entry under W.s term had nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait that had happened more then a decade earlier.... And "inventing stories", or certain elements within the administration gunning for another war (when we had Afgan to deal with), and being willing to go on intelligence even the CIA was expressing credibility problems with, isn't reason to just go as such... Nor was it reason for Karl Rove to out the ambassador's wife, after the ambassador didn't back up the Niger uranium claims, much to the chagrin of the CIA itself, incidently....

Ya know though, Rove might just have met his match in that though. Though there could be evidence trace to link anything, notice how AFTER Rove outed Plame, certain secrets wrt Bush admin policies also begane to leak, albeit not the sort of info that would have been akin to outing an agent. If the CIA was disgruntled enough, they would have the intelligence and the know how, to leak some stuff, without it tracking back... Whether or not such had occured, I have heard indication that the CIA was mighty peeved, peeved enough to have essentially told W. Bush that Rove was to punished, and with more then a slap on the wrist, or they'd deal with Rove, their way... If black ops are any indication, they can be a bit creative, if you will, wrt their way of dealing with things :o /lol Rove's actions, might just have annoyed the wrong people wrt our own military/industrial complex....

TEA1959, dont forget we have some people at Moron AB as well. Rota is a great place to visit.

Sunstorm Jones: Are you freaking kidding me? Nutcase.

Joe, we had a justifiable reason to drive Hussein back into Iraq in '91 when he invaded Kuwait, but 10-12 years later, when Bush and his cronies knew he posed no threat, they still saw fit to flat out LIE to the American people when Bush said in a State of the Union address that Hussein's lust for WMDs could manifest itself in a "mushroom cloud" on our shores, which would be laughable if so many people didn't actually believe it and were bamboozled into supporting a war with a country that had nothing to do with 911, no identifiable stock of WMD, and no means of producing them, yet were scared into believing he was a bad man up to no good. And for this reason he needed to be taken out at a cost of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and trillions of dollars, much of which went to Cheney's Halliburton thieves.
Bush's administration ruled on fear and the gullibility of Americans such as yourself Joe, who were convinced Hussein to be eliminated at any cost...after all, our military consisted of an endless supply of brave, but expendable volunteers, right Joe?

But what if we had let sadam sit and develope nuclear programs? I'm not saying i like the war in iraq, but its sure better than inaction and allowing him to become a viable threat. furthermore, we have proof that we did the right thing in the fact that we've let iran sit now and they are on the verge (if not already there) of developing long range nuclear weapons, yet we havent done a thing about them, which of course is likely because of the fact that we're still, wrongly i might add, in iraq and afghanistan. the fact is that iraqis and afghanis need to start dealing with their stuff themselves and america needs to move on. however, if you think moving on means no more war, and especially if you think that iran, north korea, syria, china, and russia are no longer threats, you need a reality check. yes, i agree that it sucks the U.S has to seemingly always handle this s***, but who else is going to? NATO and the UN wouldn't go to war if hitler rose from the dead and became as powerful as he was pre WWII and during WWII. Britain has bombings all the time that are claimed by the taliban, but still fail to do much about it. we (america) have a conscious; don't confuse that for "war-mongering." as others have posted above, remember the last time we let isolationism dictate our actions, and remember the 7 million people that died horrible, unecessary deaths because of it. and don't use vietnam as an example people, there were a lot of variables you arent looking at; for instance, the draft brought in untrained, young kids to fight in a terrain that even the trained, volunteer soldiers weren't ready for. on top of that, the leaders in vietnam had poor strategy (and intel for that matter) throughout most of the war. today, we have much better trained soldiers who have much better, smarter leadership, which partially resulted from our failure in vietnam. two totally different situations guys. in conclusion, of course nobody wants to go to war, not democrats, not republicans (however much some of you may think to the contrary). but the facts of life in this world are this: sometimes its necessary. there is such a thing as justifiable war. oh, as an afterthought though, i haven't heard people talk about it much, but its a travesty how much african nations are ignored by our leadership in this country too. if anywhere in the world is more deserving of immediate military intervention, its some of the places like chad and sudan. horrible stories from those places that a lot of people don't hear about and therefore don't often know about.

KC: Are you referring to the fear and gullibility of me and the U.S Congress, including a Marority of Democratic Senators, among them then Senator Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State? Is that the fear and gullibility you're referring to?

By the way, Sadam Hussein WAS a bad man up to no good. Did you not know that?

And as for our military, while the supply of volunteers is not endless, they have freely and willingly made THEMSELVES expendable in the cause of promoting freedom. We should be extremely thankful for all those HEROES of many wars who have willingly put their lives at risk for our freedom and security AND the freedom of others.

Iraqis have taken up the fight for their own freedom and are fighting to protect it even now. I'm proud of the American volunteers that died to give them the chance to win.

Texas grace

"To all who said BUSH got us into this! Damn what a short term memory y'all have!!!! WHO ran jets into the Twin Towers? WHO ran a jet into the Pentagon? WHO also planned to run a jet into the US Capitol building but was thwarted? WHO!!???? Hint: it was NOT George H.W. Bush!..."

Along with memory has to be relevance. Al Qaeda is not either Afghanistan or Iraq. Proving how unfocused GWB & Co. was to direct troops into regions that had little or nothing to do with 9/11. And I think the original comment was referring to Americans. You took it all out of context in a typically feeble Neo-Natal-Nazi-Con manner just to try and make your point stick.

Bedtime For Bonzo

@ Sunstorm Jones

Bada-Bing, Bada-Boom! Right on the head. It seems the powers that be in this country learned that the divide and conquer mantra worked well here too, right on our own population. If they keep the people occupied with nonsense like it actually means something as a diversion to play the backstage hand it's much more stable and secure for them. The very nature by construct of our political system and internal power structure creates the sort of people who are running things, regardless of particular political affiliation. You all seem to think that a person can't be anti-obama and anti-bush. If you actually care about peace, you should be against both, since both have advanced the same warmongering agenda. There are furhter reasons why what you say is true, too lengthy to elaborate on here and now.

Ford Man 4 life,

"Just remember one thing. No matter where you go in the world you can always use friends. I wish all of our relationships throughout the world would have ended as well as it did between us and the old man that cut roses for his wife's grave."

I agree. I was stationed in Thailand in 1975 when the U.S. announced it would be withdrawing all its troops. I, like most other Americans, had a Thai houseboy who did all our cleaning for us. In turn, we paid them a certain amount each month. The government did not pay them; each military person paid them out of his/her own pocket. When I heard we were leaving, I realized my houseboy would be out of a job, so I made my final payment to him much larger than the usual amount. I made it as big as I could afford so that he and his wife would have something to live on until he found a new job. He had become almost like family to me. He was very grateful for that.

Many people do not realize how much the local economy benefits from the presence of the military; not only in foreign countries, but also right here at home. Every city in the United States that has at least one military base receives millions of dollars per year in economic benefits from it, both from the civilians the military employs on those bases and from the money military members spend in the community to the benefit of local businesses. That's why cities and states in the U.S. usually fight against base closures. So I can sympathize with these Germans who are losing their jobs because of the draw-down.

When I hear people talk about bringing our troops home from being stationed overseas, I have just one question, Where are we going to put them? A lot of bases over the years have been closed here in the USA. To station all of our troops back in the USA, would be an enormous cost.

Have an answer?

We can put them on our southern border with Mexico and stop the illegals from overrunning our country. No matter what Congress says what is going on right now on the border is illegal. they think they have an entitlement to be here and a lot of them think they own Calif. and Arizona etc. This POTUS and Bush before him have done a terrible job of protecting the American people from this evasion. Time to get ALL ILLEGALS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY and look out for ourselves first.

Actually Ford Man...we cannot. Posse Comitatus. We can not put our Federal Troops on the border to do police work. And tea1959, they have already moved a majority of them back. I know Fort Bliss Texas got a majority of them. There is plenty of room at the bases we have. (We had to expand a bit, but it was not onerous.

I suspect with bringing back more of our military people from Europe, closing more bases, we will continue to see further reduction in forces. That's right, they will be put out of the military and poured into our fantastic economy with so many vacant job openings ...

#5 I would question whether or not we should not have a presence in any country that we can, in today's atmosphere with all the infiltration and an undermining that is being done by groups or factions that don't like us. I think it's very important to maintain a force strategically located, the economy should not be a factor when the time comes to cut costs, however I know that their is a need to trim the fat always, that is my one big concern it seems that once we move some place and set up facilities there is always corrupt ness I think the integrity factor needs to be fixed, an that's another issue that needs to be addressed

Good point, Eagle. Although, may I add tourism?

but having a presence to keep a face in the crowd helps maintain a welcome that also invites friends

That is why we have Embassies and Consulates. We do not need to have the military. The military usually does not send a very "friendly" message to anybody.

Irespond--If you actually believe that the military does not send a friendly message than you obviously have never been anywhere that had a current or past threat. When the wolf is at the door having a way to counter it is very friendly.

irespond, i live for a considerable portion of the year in Germany. Although I sometimes get invitations to embassy parties, as do locals, I cannot say that embassies (American, or non-American embassies in the U.S. or elsewhere) ever really do anythings for relations with or a national image projected to, indigeneous people. Their official functions are simply placed elsewhere, and they are too small to make a street-level difference. However, I have no doubt that our military people, over the course of years, have been outstanding ambassadors of American goodwill, friendliness and support to Germans. We are well represented at the street level by our troops and employees, and we derive a significant boost in the way we are perceived.

Ditto, that, Alexis-3212545......the German experience was REAL and the German experience was FUN, but, it was definitely NOT REAL FUN....

Spending $2 BILLION per week at war in Afghanistan ($800,000 borrowed from China per week), NO ONE believes we are in peaceful times.

I realize how few can tolerate the idea that the potential for war with other sovereigns is slipping away. A sort of confused comfort thru fear of an imminent threat of attack infests our populace. Eventually all war will become pointless anyway. And that may not be in the too distant future either. It does make sense too that at some point those who cannot tolerate the thought of no furhter potential threat from another sovereign will see it coming and seek to stage a sort of last gasp Armageddon to satisfy their deepest needs. I may sound crazy, but it's quite true that there's many agressive minded people who think actual eternal peace would make our population weak, lazy and ineffective eventually. That there must always be good vs evil and the like. Somebody's always gotta' be out to get somebody, and somebody's got to stop 'em. Or life itself becomes boring and humans become necro-lethargic and might as well be dead.

Spot on Charlie!!. We need to close all of our overseas military bases and bring the troops home. We waste way too much money on our bloated defense budget.

Ok you say bring them home. To what? What are they all going to do here? Oh I know we down size,put hlf of them out, no jobs to be had, now we have homeless vets, no job vets, welfare vets. Oh I get it they can protect the boarders,oh wait they can't the Constitution says so.

Yes we need to bring our troops home from the middle east, limit to 2 brigades in germany, bring back on some of the troops we have in the Pacific( not including Korea)Yes we are going to end up with force reductions. Thats what you read here that many people want. Like it or not we are a super power and must act like one or is the alternative to just keep them all in the US, forget what is happening in the world around us. I think a lot of people need to read some pre world war 1 and 2 history to see what happens when we started down the road of an isolated country. Some bull will come along and try to take over everything.

And as others have said above and below, Americans are not liked very much around the world, well hell Americans don't even like other Americans right here in the states. I served Our country for 20 + years and total cut back is not the way to go. There is a lot of waste in the military everyone in the pentagon knows where it's at. The politicians know where it is at > And sure as the sun comes up every day the lobbist know where it's at. That is where the cuts need to be made.

Well said Night Hawk.

People now a days dont realize that being a superpower, we have responsibilities. But I guess they would rather learn how to speak chinese or russian. And if you think I am hyperboling, need to get off the newsvine and read how China is expanding globally. Do you really think the Communist Chinese government wouldn't like to see America fall? Yes, for the most part the Cold War is over, but not the idea of spreading communism throughout the world.

We not only have the extemist muslims wanting to spread there ideologies, but also the communists.

And before you rip me about our idelogies, would you rather live under a democracy or a dictatorship, or under sharia law?

But if you have never been out of the US, then you wouldn't know. Grass is always greener on the otherside

Well Said!!

Nah, they would cross the border and spend it there. Mexican bars, whores, drugs, maybe even a donkey show etc.

Absolutely Frank. If the US government can put 28,000 armed US troops in South Korea to protect their country and border why can't our government put 28,000 US troops on our border to protect our country?

Protect our country from the guy who picks our fruit or the lady who cleans our hotel rooms? They're both pretty threatening characters...there's gotta be some nefarious reason they work their butts off for 10 hr days and get paid poverty wages. They're probably meeting in secret at night, plotting their next minimum wage caper. You're right, we need to line the border with troops and shoot on site these thievin' minimum wagers. I've also heard the drug traffickers sneak across the border because it's so easy to buy armloads of semiautomatic weapons in Arizona to take back to Meheeco to shoot each other. They say there are so many little gun shops and unlicensed dealers that will gladly sell them mucho machine guns, maybe if we made it even easier to buy guns, they will shoot each other even more! Well, it's a start anyway, shoot the maids and fruit pickers, and sell the drug dealers more illegal guns. I'll bet governor Brewer would be all for it!

Sorry Frank. Posse Comitatus prohibits our Federal Troops from defending our border. Yes, we are probably the only country in the world that has made it illegal for our soldiers to defend our own borders.

KC Don't forget that they having their babies in local hospitals without paying (in OK they admit under Welfare with the hope that there will be insurance), costing extra education dollars for ESL classes, not filing taxes (although they're not getting a refund they also may not be paying what they may owe. And the lady down the street might be cleaning our hotel rooms if they had to pay someone a living wage instead of starvation wages to an illegal. That's another thing. The term "illegal".

Gary, just how does Posse Comitatus prohibit the use of US military against foreign insurgents?

That's what Los Zetas are, they are not American criminals, they are a paramilitary band crossing the border. That's an invasion by guerilla fighters and IS a job for the military!

Or do you claim that if the Japanese invaded after Pearl that only cops could be used against them on US soil???

First of all, those silly wars need to end now. Second, "leaner military" doesn't mean fewer troops -- it means fewer big permanent bases and military installations. duh.

Silly Tom. Fewer bases and installations = fewer troops. Do your research.

Sillier Tom than L-2452195 even thought! We formally ended our military mission there on December 15th 2011. That one is over for us. We aren't fighting there anymore.

As a prior military member and now a civilian in service for our military there are so many non military people that help it run.

There are many people that are looking for work here as well. We really appreciate their service, but they must find another job or retire. Things change.

I was stationed in Germany and extended a couple of times staying 5.5 years one time. Yeh I know some guys had a bad time there, heard ya complaining bout the country people, and a dozen BS reasons. You won't admit it but the truth is you guys have a BS attitude about everything. I had the normal up and downs that went with being in the Army, some days good and others Uuh. I went to Hiedelburg on a regular basass on my time off, fell in live with the place. There are many things that I miss about it there. It is to bad that a lot of people won't get the chance to experience the country, culture and people.

6dogs -- I do believe they were called "barracks rats" and nothing would please them! They were great at complaining when they got back to CONUS how much they hated Germany!

While I do agree that we do need more scaleback in Europe, I never thought Heidelberg would close! Wonder if USEUCOM at Patch is closing as well.

My tour in Germany was life changing for me, I too regret more won't have the opportunity to expand their horizons.

I am sure the aid they get from usa is huge, far as hate towards usa you couldn't tell that from all of them you see on florida beaches every season,the rest of america just don't see it if you don't live in fl or ariz,but their here.

I agree with you that obama is great,but it was several years and several president's ago that they got their aid package from.

Maybe the "great Steve O" should not try and bring politics into this.

#15 The (GERMANS) do not hate Americans, but as in any foreign country obnoxious and bad conduct is taken as a insult and treated as such. When I go to Germany for example I usually meet 10 or so other Americans who also are part of a project that we are involved with, out of the 10 or so that I meet with threre is always 1 or 2 that show their bad habits, those kind of people are disliked by the Germans and also I don't mingle with them outside of work. You know it takes all kinds, but when I see some one showing their ass I get really pissed off especially when it's a fellow American. The bad part is that generally you can not even tell them any thing, won't listen. It's like when they leave home (state side) they go nuts, and it happens a lot, so sorry

In general I don't think the Germans have any more beef with us than other countries do.

I visited Germany once and came across a relative of the family who was hosting us. Throughout dinner he insisted that German food, wine, culture, etc. was better than the U.S. I just nodded along to appease him. No need arguing.

Campbell Barracks was a great duty station. I lived in Patrick Henry Village. The locals were very friendly people and made our stay there a wonderful experience. Years after we had moved on my children asked, "When can we go back to our old house?"

When I was in Germany in 2004, I was met with great kindness by the German people. The only disagreement they had was with the US going to war with Iraq. However, they were still respectful when they disagreed.

I even had a man come up to me and hug me for no reason because I was American. He said that he loved America because America freed them. This was in Berlin and the man was talking about life before the reunification. So, I don't see how the Germans hate America

Europeans tend to dislike America as a nation, not Americans as individuals. However, if you're ever in Europe, it's a good idea to remember to talk quietly (Americans talk much louder than most) and to make an effort at learning some basics of the language of the country you're visiting. Yes, almost all Germans and a solid majority of young French people speak conversational English, but it's nice to not come off as though you "expect" them to speak your language.

Steve O.: Since when? If you puff out your chest and act like an arrogant jerk (like many conservatives) they'll treat you with disrespect and laugh at you. The problem is that like yourself, over 70% of Americans do not possess a passport and have never been to Europe or anywhere outside of the US.

Ryan - WI

Europeans tend to dislike America as a nation, not Americans as individuals. However, if you're ever in Europe, it's a good idea to remember to talk quietly (Americans talk much louder than most) and to make an effort at learning some basics of the language of the country you're visiting. Yes, almost all Germans and a solid majority of young French people speak conversational English, but it's nice to not come off as though you "expect" them to speak your language.

How do Europeans like having to PRESS #2 to speak to the NEW "Americans"?

@Steve O: Actually, I shouldn't even grace your highly uninformed post with a comment but I'm going to anyway.

The Germans don't hate Americans. What the Germans hate are Americans who come to Germany with a huge ego and a bad attitude, Americans who act like jerks and who are NOT goodwill ambassadors of the U.S. And the Germans apply this extreme dislike of such persons equally toward people from any country who act like a horse's behind.
Come to think of it, I feel the same way. And yes, sometimes I feel that way toward fellow Americans even. However, there are bad apples in any bunch, no matter where you go in the world. Conversely, there are good people wherever you go. But if you are close minded, you'll only ever see the bad, and never the good.

So grow up, learn something about the world and get an attitude adjustment!

What a dumb comment!

I am sure the aid they get from usa is huge

You shouldn't be so sure of things. As a matter of fact, not only does Germany NOT receive foreign aid from the US (see http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm#top-recipient-countries) Germany is the second largest GRANTER of foreign aid to other countries in the world.

Also, in general, the Germans do not hate the U.S. Attitude is also much better since Bush is out of office. Many Germans did indeed strongly dislike our former president and our government. However, on a one-to-one basis, Germans and Americans usually get a long quite well.

WTF?Based on what?Germans don't like or dislike Americans any more then people from any other country.They are in general a people who tell it like it is and tend to be cautious pessimists instead of gung-ho optimists, offer genuine friendship and hospitality,will call you out on your BS but will be the first to recognize excellence and congratulate you.

I lived a year as an exchange student in Heidelberg, and I can tell you the Germans don't hate Americans. They don't like the ones who come over and act like they're better than anyone else, just because they're American, but I have lots of German friends that I still keep in contact with.

Good riddance, you dolt. You have no idea what you're talking about.

ranman87, I spent over three years in a little border town, about five clicks from East Germany, and about ten miles from the Czechoslovakian(yes that was the name of the Czech Republic then). All in the first three years of the sixties. I can honestly say, I am extremely proud of the opportunity to intermingle with the Germans. As a German linguist , I was asked to help American families locate scarce off-post living quarters. It was only fifteen years after the end of WWII, and DP Camps were still in operation. Occasionally, I ran into old Nazi believers, but 99% of the people I dealt with were sincerely pleased to have us, and it was shown by their hospitality towards us. There were a lot of orphanages in the area that many US soldiers and airmen aided often, especially around Christmas. Sometimes some drinking young Americans would act up and show their rear ends. Those were dealt with by fellow military guys, and unless serious infractions, the military authorities were not involved.I will never forget that place, the German people's graciousness towards us. Ein prosit an alle Duetsche leute.

when lobbying is outlawed,term limits imposed,change will come to washington

RIVER Term limits are imposed you vote them out of office.

not so true, with huge amounts of money and spindoctor's they can fool the people most of the time,if you don't see that then your one of them.

@ river dog,When you go to the polls to vote, (that's assuming that you do vote) do you look at the candidate who has spent the most money on his campaign? Or do you look rather or not they have an(R) or (D) behind their name? Better yet, do you look at the person, rather than part affiliation, to make this country better?

Term limits are, 2, 4 and six years

Yes River Dog, I agree with term limits for politicians. One term in office and one term in prison. Yes, they deserve it.

river dog 242,

I would agree with the money aspect of your post.

"We have the best government money can buy." Sadly, 99% of us are outspent. We can't even come close to competing. We have got to get the money out of the system. I'm less concerned about term limits. I am concerned about the money.

Just. you are dreaming, there has always been money in the system, even in George Washington's system. It is not cheap getting your message out. If money was totally taken out of the system, whomever was in office would be there forever. Politicians can use our tax funds to basically campaign, and the poor guy trying to replace the incumbent would be at a terrible disadvantage. If we, the citizens would do our job on election day, we would never need any term limits other than every 2,4,6 year intervals.

Watch/Hand, our troops in Germany do not solely benefit Germany, we are there for our defense purposes as well, even today, or we would have left many years ago. I was a part of the Cold War intelligence community many years ago, that collected information about the Soviet Union's military capabilities, and intentions. I am sure we do not need the 500,00 American military and families of those days, but a military present will be necessary for many years to come. Stopping it over there is better than waiting until we are attacked over here, to stop it. OOPS, we were attacked over here on 9/11.

presence. I never received a military "present".

biff please stop telling the truth, you will drive some crazy.thanks again for speaking up. little good that it does are leaders are power crazy, washington is out of control and has been for years, we are seen by them as fools. as long as we come to them with our hands out, begging for crums thay have us. i don't want anything the government has, i will trust in god ,not these lost soul's

So is the welfare budget

Irresponsible.

Can't have law and order without police. Just take look at the UN. Without a military component its just a wishy washy gas bag. Need proof? How many meetings, resolutions and strongly worded statements were made on Darfur and Rwanda? How did that work out for those folks? They were stacking the bodies like fire wood.

Dear Sweet Innocent Dawn,

Do you know anything about the 20th century and what happens when the U.S. disarms and becomes isolationist? Have you ever heard of World War II? Do you know what happened in that war and why?

I would guess the answer to the first and third questions are "No."

Below are some things for you to google. You may have heard of some of them already. If you are not yet 18, wait until you are. Some of the topics are not fit for children. But before you go to the polls to cast a vote, please educate yourself on these topics:

"Rape of Nanking" "Attack on Pearl Harbor" "Blitzkrieg" "Battle of Brittain" "Halocaust" "Auswich" "Bataan Death March" "Joseph Mengele" "Final Solution" "Arsenal of Democray" "D-day Invasion" "Hiroshima" "Marshal Plan"

We can learn from history, honey. Bad people are still around. Bad things still happen. If not for U.S. defense spending, things would be much worse than they are for a lot of people all over the world.

You might also google these:

"Tianamen Square Massacre" "Chinese Military Expansion" "Chinese claims in South China Sea" "Muslim Fundamentalism" "Jihad" & "Sharia Law"

And sweetie, you are correct. We don't let other countries set up military bases here. Some countires would like to set up bases here anyway, but they can't. And there is a reason that they can't. Would you care to guess why we are able to prevent them from setting up bases here? I bet you know!

Focus on our problems at home?

What problems and how would you suggest that they be fixed? Are you suggesting that for as long as we've had any military presence overseas that no President nor any Congress has done anything to "fix" problems here at home?

Do you have any solutions or is it all just the military's fault? Do you not realize that ALL government spending is out of control? Are you one of those OWS dumbos who thinks that the government is unable to take care of you and give you everything that you think it ought to.

And that number: 250,00 should be cut in half.

We peddle democracy, not pedal. We pedal bicycles. And you say that like it was a bad thing! Do you have any better ideas? A dictatorship with you in charge maybe?

Since Germany is one of the richest countries in the European Union, it will be able to easily provide for its newly unemployed citizens. Assuming the base was considered American soil, wil the U.S. sell the land back to Germany, or What. If it's still German property, I'm sure with the crowding in the a lot of European countries, Germany will welcome the space.

The military is downsizing bases; not the military itself.