Americans come home

A.B.Normal said:
Actually thats not where I heard/read it,I don't watch PBS for the news,but it was similar in content to what I was referring.It was either at work that I read it in the newspaper ,clicked on a sidebar at one of the news webpages,or one of the network News broadcasts.Sunday/Monday were quite hectic for me and I haven't been able to find the exact article since.
Click to expand...

Convenient, A.B....I've seen those pop up from time-to-time myself, but they never have any figures attached, and they never show what, exactly, was paid for. They usually come up before a large base closure...go figure. Truth is that it's eyewash. The money for overseas construction projects comes from the Pentagon. If the host nation pays anything, it's because the base is shared, and, once we leave (if we leave), the entire base reverts to them, so the money is not for the US...it's for their base. Who owns any closed bases in, say, Italy, if the US does a complete withdrawal? How about Germany? Spain, the UK, Japan, Korea? Don't get lost in the rhetoric...the money wasn't spent for the US forces. It was spent for the host countries gain if we decide to pull out.
 
HomeLAN said:
Oooo, a billion a year. According to my sources, that's ONE base. One. We're giving a hell of a lot more than we're getting.
Click to expand...

We, as in the US, is not getting anything. As I stated before, the base that is being 'subsidised' doesn't really belong to the US military. It's leased. That's like saying that your landlord putting new appliances in your apartment let's you keep them when you move. A.B. is sniffing at the wrong rump on this one... ;)
 
April 2003
The Heritage Foundation
in a speech by Kay Hutchison
All of this raises serious questions. Is it more efficient to train our soldiers in the United States and deploy them abroad as needed? And if we are looking for new bases overseas because of the new security threats, do we fund them by closing stateside bases or perhaps obsolete overseas bases?

Regardless of which alternative is pursued, the responsibility and cost of meeting the challenges of the 21st century threats around the world cannot be met by one nation alone. Bilateral cost sharing is the direct payment of certain United States stationing costs by the host nation, a cornerstone of our allied partnerships.

Today, Germany contributes 21 percent to our basing. Japan and Saudi Arabia cover approximately 80 percent. Italy contributes 37 percent. In a relatively new agreement, the Korean government has pledged to increase its contributions from approximately 41 percent to 50 percent of stationing costs by 2004.

Clearly, there is a broad spectrum of cost sharing with our allies around the world. As we consider various factors in our basing decisions, we should also consider cost sharing.
Click to expand...
Full text
 
Gato_Solo said:
We, as in the US, is not getting anything. As I stated before, the base that is being 'subsidised' doesn't really belong to the US military. It's leased. That's like saying that your landlord putting new appliances in your apartment let's you keep them when you move. A.B. is sniffing at the wrong rump on this one... ;)
Click to expand...
My guess is that WE put in the new oven and the land-lord gets to keep it.

I bet we paid for all the construction cost and that our options are to leave it or pay for it to be raised when we leave.

Im sure they will find something to do with a retired and empty US base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top