German-American Relations: What Would You Do?

Ah, there is a major flaw in the stats that 800 LB Ewok stated.


His stats were from the US....compared to the UK.

The stats I am talking about are between the US....and England/Wales regions.

I have never heard about Scotland having any of the problems with street crime or what not, so you essentially have inflated your stat's by posting that.

And they are comparing England/Wales to the ENTIRE United States. Imagine if I were to selectively pick out regions of the US that may or may not have higher or lower crime rates to make my point?

Going back to the main subject of this thread....

I would begin the withdrawal of US Troops from Germany, and from Europe in general, maybe down to a single Army Brigade, an Air Force Base, and that's it. So what if it jacks up the European economy? When I was in Germany, I spent who knows how much money on the German economy (well...the beer economy anyway), and did my touring of Europe then. I am sure the Germans won't mind losing our dollars.

 

POLUNIS - the Saudis are not wahabis. They are anti-modernist like the wahabis, but the wahabis, like bin Laden, are in opposition to them. There IS a reason he was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991...

E_S

 

The reason why he was expelled was because of desiring to subvert the Saud dynasty, not because he was a Wahabbi.

 

From Regions of Mind

Some may carp that I'm only piling on as far as the blog world's Germanophobic rhetoric, but it should be pointed out that Schroeder's government is announcing significant defense cuts this week. The Times of London sums them up as "big cuts in spending on key arms projects."

German criticism of U.S. military muscle and "unilateralism" is hard to take when German officials are unapologetically shortchanging their own country's military capabilities. The same goes for German complaints about the yawning gap between their country's military capability and that of the United States.

As the Times article points out, the German government's decision directly undercuts a recent pledge by NATO officials to reduce that technology gap.

 

I would not go THAT far. I was in Germany twice while in the Army and while the Leopard tank is not at the same level of the Abrams series tank of the US, the Leopard is still an incredible weapon.

 

What was too far in the assessment? In the past 5 years, the technology gap has widened considerably, especially in the realm of guided munitions and battlefield communication.

One reason the US and UK cooperate so much is that hte UK is the only other armed forces that can integrate with our high-tech forces in order to train with the new technology. People from inside and outside Europe have been calling for them to increase military spending, to close (or at least maintain) the gap...and criticism of the US's power becomes hollow when Europe is perpetrating the problem by not investing in their own defense.

 

Oh, I won't deny that. Even under the first two years of the Clinton Defense budget, the US Military still saw lots of expansion of it military technolog; I saw that when we went into Bosnia, the whole thing where the Europeans would not go in unless we led the way.

Another issue is simply put as this: The military technology developed under Reagan put us so far ahead, that in truth, the Technology we had in the mid 1980's will still beat anything coming out of Europe or the former Soviet Union to this day.

 

I don't see the point in much more technological military advancement, except in certain fields. What is the point in developing bigger and larger and more devestating tanks and aircraft and bombs, when they are not really in call any more?

The US is still pursuing a defence budget engineered for the Cold War and the time prior to it. Nowadays, the real threat to national security is from terrorism and so-called 'rogue states.' The technology that should be being developed should correspond to that threat, not to an imagined threat of another superpower.

- Scarlet.

 

You are correct...except that the US defense budget has adapted in recent years in many areas. There are still a few 'cold war' programs, such as the Paladin and the F-22 (which I'd still like deployed) and the Seawolf. However, money towards ballistic missile shields and making all munitions 'smart' and improving radar and command-and-control and arming drones are all technologies that will help solve 21st century problems.

Surely you can see the value, when dealing with 'rogue' or 'stateless' foes, of having more agile, accurate and lethal forces? The US is not churning out tanks and battleships, nor are they asking the lagging NATO countries to do so. They're asking them to 'catch-up' and modernise.

 

Iraqi report could prove damaging to Germany

Just as the heated debates within the German government over the role of German troops and equipment in a possible war against Iraq seem to be cooling down, another potential bombshell threatens to reignite the fires.

On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany.

The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program.


The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.

In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place.

The paper reports that the dossier contains several indications of cases, where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated the illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an extent.


The German Finance Ministry has said that it will react to the report only once it has studied the Iraqi declaration.

"We?ll first wait till the report is in our hands," a spokesman from the ministry said on Tuesday.

The spokesman however said that the German government of the time in 1990 had informed the parliament about such German supplies to Iraq.

Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there has been a strict embargo against the country. The spokesman said that there have been a few cases of violation of the embargo and the government has initiated investigations.


Explosive as the newspaper report may appear, it?s not the first of its kind.

For months rumors have been circulating in the German media of murky deals between German arms companies and businessmen with Iraq despite the rigid embargoes in place.

In October this year, a magazine of the German radio channel, Südwestrundfunk reported that electronics giant Siemens had delivered specialized technical equipment to Iraq for the treatment of kidney stones, but which could also under certain circumstances be used as a detonator for atom bombs.

Siemens insisted that the device could not be misused because it had commissioned an Iraqi company to regularly monitor the equipment. In fact the delivery was even sanctioned by the sanctions council of the U.N. and the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA).

The latest newspaper report also touches upon the gray zone between medicine and armaments and writes of so-called dual-use goods that can be used for developing weapons as well as for civilian purposes.

The German government was apparently informed in 1999 of the delivery of such dual-use goods to Iraq, but is said to have turned a blind eye.


German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.

From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro.

German goods worth 226,2 million euro have already been shipp

 

BERLIN (Reuters) - Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 troops to guard U.S. bases in the country at the end of January, a government source said on Friday, as speculation mounted of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq early next year.

In Washington, U.S. defense officials declined to discuss numbers, but told Reuters the United States would welcome any offer from Berlin both to provide base security and not to interfere with potential movement of Americans troops in Germany.

A senior German government source told Reuters an informal request had been made for German forces to help guard barracks and other military installations as well as transport routes for U.S. troops. A parliamentary source also confirmed the request.

A Defense Ministry spokesman said only that Germany had agreed to a U.S. request for help guarding bases in case of war but was still examining when and how much support would be needed.

"A decision can be expected at the beginning of the new year," the spokesman said.

The United States has 71,000 troops, mostly army and air force, stationed at various bases around Germany.

Despite German government opposition to a war with Iraq that has strained relations with Washington, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder assured President Bush last month that Germany will grant fly-over and transit rights for U.S. forces.

However, any troop movements are likely to attract protests from Germany's large pacifist movement and any war would raise the level of security alert for U.S. installations in Germany.

SUPPORT LIKELY TO PROVOKE TENSION

A war and any German support for it is also likely to provoke tension in the ruling coalition of Schroeder's Social Democrats and Greens partners, some of whom have said U.S. fly-over rights should only be granted if there is a U.N. mandate for an attack on Iraq.

A U.S. defense official in Washington told Reuters Rumsfeld had met with German Defense Minister Peter Struck and that the United States would leave any announcement on German help to that government.

"We would welcome any offer of security help and would hope there would be no interference with any movements," the official said.

The United States has been steadily building forces in the Gulf region, with Bush warning that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must comply with a U.N. resolution to stop developing weapons of mass destruction or face possible military attack.

Wednesday, U.S. officials said the military has been told to notify up to 50,000 troops that they may be sent to the Gulf region early next year. The United States currently has about 60,000 troops in the region overseen by U.S. Central Command.

Bush has approved a flexible U.S. military plan for a possible large-scale invasion of Iraq using up to 250,000 troops.

Prime Minister Tony Blair told British troops in a Christmas message on Friday to prepare for possible war with Iraq but said it was still unclear whether weapons inspectors would find Iraq in breach of a U.N. resolution on disarmament.

The United States has said Iraq is in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions for failing to disclose information about illegal weapons. Britain says it is deeply disappointed with Iraq's arms declaration but has stopped short of saying Iraq is in material breach as yet, a term that could trigger war.

This is quite interesting. What are peoples thoughts on the US asking Germany to look after their bases for them?

- Scarlet.

 

Good move, I think. It allows the Germans to contribute and support, without the political fallout of leaving the country or overt support.

Iraq (+ terrrorists) only method of attack/defense in this conflict, and others, is primarily asymmetrical. There are many terrorist cells in Europe, and I would think the US bases in Germany would be as vulnerable, if not *more* vulnerable, than troops barracked in Kuwait or in the Persian Gulf. It is good to recognise this threat, and a good division of labour (freeing more US assets for the regional conflict), given the current political climate in Germany.