The Not so Subtle Moral Decay of the US Military

When did the US stop occupying Germany?

 

May 1955 when West Germany joined NATO.

 

May 5, 1955.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/allies-end-occupation-of-west-germany

 

In name ONLY ! -
US Military Bases in Germany are there to "protect American Corporate Interests" and to
"project American Corporate Power" and can therefore be seen as an Army of OCCUPATION
with American, NATO & German Militaries conscripted into the role of Thug & Goon Auxiliaries
........... to a Transnational Corporate Empire. The same sort of maintained the Roman Empire

US Military in Germany: What You Need to Know
https://www.dw.com/en/us-military-in-germany-what-you-need-to-know/a-49998340
From The Article:
When the military occupation of West Germany officially ended, the country regained control
of its own defense policy.... (ad: In Name ONLY - As)... However, the Occupation Statute was
succeeded by another agreement with its NATO partners. This deal, known as the Convention
on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, was signed in 1954 by
West Germany. It allowed eight NATO members, including the US, to have a permanent military
... presence in Germany. The treaty still regulates the terms and conditions of the NATO troops
.............................................................................................................. stationed in Germany today.

 

Complete BS and utter and deliberate misinterpretation of international agreements. Nobody forced West Germany to sign agreements involving the U.S. and NATO. They did for their own reasons.

 

Wasn't there a big bear living to their East?

 

Of course the West Germans had a lot of incentive to join NATO. But they still were not forced to. The U.S. didn't have the practice of invading its West European allies and crushing them unlike the Soviets with their East European "allies" in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

 

It was that Soviet tendency that kept us there in force and I have no idea why we are still there. I suspect it's mutually beneficial though.

 

Mainly for the forward bases to support U.S. operations in the Middle East A neighbor guy that live a mile from my parents lost both legs in a grenade attack in Baghdad. He was evacuated to the huge base hospital in Frankfurt (IIRC). There they amputated both his legs and stabilized him before shipping him home to the U.S.

It would be prohibitively expensive to rebuild all that infrastructure elsewhere.

 

Oh, please.

 

Of coarse the US didn't invade their European Allies, they simply $BOUGHT$ them. As they were
too busy at the time of regime changing, invading, and crushing their Latino neighbours to the south.

They have since graduated from the small time Thuggeries of doing the will of Delmonte and United
Fruit, to destroying larger nations such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, etc etc, and doing the bidding
.... of a sick, Psychotic, paranoid, human hating Military Industrial Complex, & enriching the bloody
......................................................................................................................................................... Masters of War

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Involvement in Regime Change in Latin America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

Even YOUR Generals are getting FedUp with the sort of Hypocritical
.......... that YOU guys seem to enjoy having upon YOUR plate


7 Countries in Five Years
not talking of Hungary and Czechoslovakia as in Thug Goon Gangsta Lingo Dats Russki Territory

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

& Thank You
...............

 

Even if true (citation needed for your claim) no one ever forced the Europeans to sell.

 

Ever hear of "The Marshall Plan" ?

 

Of course. I've done a lot of research on it. It was straight up foreign aid . There was no expectations or requirements on the Europeans.

 

I hold our military in very high regard.

That said, I think that if politicians send them off to some endless war, those politicians should be forced to go on point on the battlefield. It is their war. Let them go first.

 

Please understand I do not see The Marshal Plan as a bad or Evil Policy.
However to say that it was purely altruistic and had NO strings attached, would
................................................................................................................ be Delusional

NATO was the first peacetime military alliance the United States entered into
outside of the Western Hemisphere. The resulting European Recovery Program,
or Marshall Plan, facilitated the formation of NATO and the economic integration
... of Europe, as it promoted the idea of shared interests and cooperation with the
.. Corporate American Empire and Europe.countering a hyped up Soviet threat

Europe was in RUINS. Russia was perhaps the worst off and most devastated Nation
in all of Europe, outside of Germany. While the US was basically UNTOUCHED except
for a few GI's who got popped off saving Private Ryan. The US was left with a Booming
Economy and could simply write blank cheque$ to their chosen Auxillaries making them
offers that they could not refuse. Fair to say they $Bought$ Western Europe
............................................................................................................................. when the price was rock bottom


Oxford University Press
Ten Fascinating Facts About The Marshall Plan
https://blog.oup.com/2018/03/ten-fascinating-facts-marshall-plan/
From The Article:
3. The European Union and NATO were products of the Marshall Plan.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. Policy should not be based on personal exposure to danger. Political leaders should be as utterly cold blooded as possible.

 

The President should lead the charge.

He can leave the VP in charge in Washington, and be a man and a leader.

If our leaders are too weak, soft, and cowardly to go to war, they have no right to send our children to their damn wars.

 

Young people are the ones that should be sent to war.

Though you do know that the average age of Americans who died in Iraq was 30 don't you?

 

Oh, I agree so much with you!!!
The other thing is, we mothers should refuse to let our children be sent to all those "we want to bring you democracy" wars, which are nothing but plundering another nation of its resources. But since they lie to us big time, it is hard to know what is really going on.

Having listened to Joe Biden's from the heart inaugural speech, I was tempted to believe things would be different now... no more violence, but dialogue and negotiations.

It didn't take a day and here he is sending 200 more troops into Syria to help the opposition to topple their leader, Bashar al-Assad = pleasing the Israelis!

https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/01/n...-large-military-convoy-into-syria-on-day-two/

 

Should have been 70.

 

No. Young people should fight and die in wars. They are the most expendable.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Nah, we old farts are expendable. I have had a son go off to war. Have you?

 

our last commander in chief (capt bonespurs) was immoral, he is gone now, things will get back to normal