DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Biotech Company Creates Cancer Killing Molecular Grenade

**mymnduccete** · 02-07-2012, 11:43 AM

Come on. Where did you get that figure? There are only, and what, 100,000 US troops in Europe? How much would you save by moving bases from Europe to the US? And it's not like the personnel would just disappear. And what are all those US forces are actually doing in Europe, anyway? I'm guessing sightseeing.

Both Europeans and Americans would benefit from Americans closing their bases abroad (and ending government handouts to the Israeli and Egyptian military).

Equipment, equipment, equipment. I don't just mean what is in europe but our navy, air force, which has to supplement theirs, not to mention the nuclear umbrella. They can't run a campaign in tiny ass Libya without the US first destroying all the hardened targets, then we have to give them ordinance, and coordinate, and supply the intelligence. We spend ~150b a year on supplementing their nato obligations, and about the same either bribing or protecting their oil.

Our military budget in reality ~ 700+b a year (the wars are supplemental and not even a part of this figure). Almost half is protecting them or their interests. Look at what the US spends on nato, and what the rest of nato spends on nato. Then get back to me.

Think of it this way: Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy won't be spending anything on nato. The rest of nato countries combined = less than $200b. That is their entire military budget excluding canada/japan/non euro countries.

It cost 10b a month in either war theatre to pay for 100k troops. So, 5-6b a month to feed, house and pay salaries of the 100k troops stationed in Europe. 70b a year before equipment, maintenance fuel, training, medical, moving them etc. And what is it really for? What does it get us? Luke warm friends at best? South americans would be much cheaper, much friendlier and in our hemisphere. And the best part. They are the future, not the past.

I am not Ron Paul when it comes to diplomacy, but there is no reason for the US to have 1 troop or 1 piece of equipment in Europe. And if that means russia moves in to fill our spot... well, have fun with that europe.

02-07-2012, 11:43 AM	#24
mymnduccete Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 450 Senior Member	Come on. Where did you get that figure? There are only, and what, 100,000 US troops in Europe? How much would you save by moving bases from Europe to the US? And it's not like the personnel would just disappear. And what are all those US forces are actually doing in Europe, anyway? I'm guessing sightseeing. Both Europeans and Americans would benefit from Americans closing their bases abroad (and ending government handouts to the Israeli and Egyptian military). Equipment, equipment, equipment. I don't just mean what is in europe but our navy, air force, which has to supplement theirs, not to mention the nuclear umbrella. They can't run a campaign in tiny ass Libya without the US first destroying all the hardened targets, then we have to give them ordinance, and coordinate, and supply the intelligence. We spend ~150b a year on supplementing their nato obligations, and about the same either bribing or protecting their oil. Our military budget in reality ~ 700+b a year (the wars are supplemental and not even a part of this figure). Almost half is protecting them or their interests. Look at what the US spends on nato, and what the rest of nato spends on nato. Then get back to me. Think of it this way: Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy won't be spending anything on nato. The rest of nato countries combined = less than $200b. That is their entire military budget excluding canada/japan/non euro countries. It cost 10b a month in either war theatre to pay for 100k troops. So, 5-6b a month to feed, house and pay salaries of the 100k troops stationed in Europe. 70b a year before equipment, maintenance fuel, training, medical, moving them etc. And what is it really for? What does it get us? Luke warm friends at best? South americans would be much cheaper, much friendlier and in our hemisphere. And the best part. They are the future, not the past. I am not Ron Paul when it comes to diplomacy, but there is no reason for the US to have 1 troop or 1 piece of equipment in Europe. And if that means russia moves in to fill our spot... well, have fun with that europe.
	Quote