English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

or do we force them to let us ocupy them

2007-02-14 21:45:53 · 9 answers · asked by bruce j 2 in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

Bruce ... At this point, it's not an occupation. However, I don't think you literally meant "occupation."

But to answer your question, it is possible that the political climate could take a very, very sharp turn and there might be a demand for our forces to withdraw. I don't frankly know if/when that might happen. After all, we've been there since the end of World War II, as you know. However, except for the protests that erupt whenever an American soldier breaks their laws, there seems to be a mutual acceptance for our long-term deployment to these countries. I think we all benefit in some ways. Yes, the relationships have been strained sometimes, but after more than 6 decades, they're still there.

We can probably write a book trying to thoroughly answer your question, but this is my assessment. Thanks for the question.

2007-02-14 21:58:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I can only talk for Germany:
By definition actually it is an occupation, because all the rights that the US, french and UK forces, stationed in Germany have are based on occupation laws after WWII. It is not a bilateral contract that would have been signed by an elected German government.

If you look back in German history, there have been basically 3 phases:
1. WWII aftermath 1945-70's were the occupation and the forces were seen as a usual procedure and as NATO forces supporting the defense line against the communistic easter European countries.
2. In the seveties up to 89 student protest and peace orginastions formed up and portests against nuclear weapons being brought to Germany, as well as against the US, UK and french forces being in Germany took place. Still the majority of Germans saw the forces as protection. The presece of the forces was more and mor questioned.
3. Cold war aftermath: The US, UK and France gave up many locations and reshuffeled their global presence as a reaction to the end of the cold war. The economical factor of the mitlitary presence became very obvious, where the US (and UK & French forces) moved away. It is not true that they paid rent, but having some thousand (or tens of thousands) soldiers stationed at a town also meant you needed civil personal (cleaning, maintainance, repairs, building, cooking, bakers etc.), but also those soldiers spent money in pubs, for rent if they were living outside of the barracks, cars, fuel, food etc.

Many of former protesters regretted the previous protests.

I think in Germany the US forces are really living with an friendly environment, and protests might be related to noise or pollution from training areas, but basically that's it. I am convinced that if there would be a decision to move all of that forces out of the country, or to sign a contract between the German government and the US to move from occupation rights and laws to a normal bilateral situation, that contract would be signed without any (at least not more than the usual German) hesitation.

2007-02-15 12:39:48 · answer #2 · answered by markus0032003 4 · 0 0

We pay big dollars for the Leases that we have with them. Next, the Option was given and it was Germany and Japan that asked us to remain. The threat of rogue nations is high and so they felt more secure with the US in the region. Germany is now part of the EU and the EU may have different plans as they have a new combined armed forces around the size of the US with a new combined Nuke force as well. Japan is growing it's defensive capabilities but has a lot more "Unfriendlies" within minutes away. I expect we will be Kept around a while longer.

2007-02-14 22:05:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

No, and they're not forced to let us "occupy" them, either. Many of the towns near which there are military bases in Germany and Japan are GRATEFUL for what the Americans do for their economy.

I'm stationed in Baumholder, Germany right now, with my husband, who is US Army. Baumholder is a TINY town, with about 4000 German inhabitants. If we Americans left, they would have nothing. There would be less of a reason to have a bus system, the taxi company would get little business, most of the businesses downtown would close, and the German contractors that the military has hired would have to relocate in order to have any work.
No, Germany won't be getting rid of us any time soon.

2007-02-14 22:01:37 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0 1

We have defended Japan for 62 years and the country does not indicate the desire to take over defending themselves. President Reagan tried to pull the troops out but Japan was not then or even now ready to spend their resources for the expense of increasing their military. They pay us for being there.
Germany is similar and even though the Europeans are not very friendly with us over Iraq and other matter they want us in their country too.
I have been to both countries and seen a lot of military presence, especially in Japan..we don't really occupy them in a true sense of the word. We left Vite Nam in 1975 and Saigon fell shortly thereafter to North Viet Nam but the Viet Nam people and Govt want us back as they like to trade with us and cultural exchange plus we still give them a lot of foreign aide

2007-02-14 22:03:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The chilly conflict would purely have became right into a warm conflict in Europe , with even more beneficial misery all round. Russia lower than Stalin nhad already proven in WW2 that it become prepared to sacrifice its personal lives in thousands and thousands and others in thousands and thousands. america of a ought to no longer have certain to wipe out Russia's entire protection stress potential in a unmarried 'first strike', subsequently Russia would purely have retreated added and added east, protecting a rump potential that ought to continually were a thorn in the flesh of any western potential that would have survived. The irony is that communism has collapsed in Russia and jap Europe, has became into dirigiste luxurious in chinese cities, subsequently probable North Korea is the in trouble-free words real communist state that continues to be - no longer fairly a international probability. The probability now comes from all forms of maverick regimes and terrorist communities.

2016-11-28 04:17:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

We don't occupy them and we have few people in Japan and less than we had in Germany and Korea as they are in Iraq!

Both places are strategically located for us, as was the Philippines!

Since most places we have leases on, it would be hard for them to tell us to leave, just as Castro has had to honor our lease at Gitmo!

2007-02-14 22:01:12 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2 0

There are american military bases all over the world, there's one not far from me. And to be quite honest, I feel a lot safer.

2007-02-14 22:06:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

LOL ROFL LMAO

2007-02-14 22:34:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers