Poland Undecided on U.S. Offer to Build Anti-Missile Shield

Polish Deputy Defence Minister Stanislaw Koziej said on Thursday that Poland was yet to make any decision on a U.S. offer to build an anti-missile shield in the country, the PAP news agency reported.

"I think that we do not have to accept an offer if it is not good for us. We do not have to have such a base on the Polish territory if it does not serve our security," Koziej said during a press conference on the future of transatlantic relations.

"No decision has been taken yet. The Polish state authorities have been convinced that the decision should not be taken in an emotional way because this is our strategic partner," Koziej said.

Currently, Poland is waiting for a more concrete offer and detailed information about whether or not Washington is going to take into account Poland's security needs and national interests, the official added.

"Poland must know if its security grows after the shield is installed on the Polish territory," Koziej said.

It is always risky if one associates only with one partner, even it is as attractive, big and strong as the United States, he said, adding "diversification is significant also in security."

Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski told PAP later that Koziej's statement did not mean Poland was going to dismiss the shield, but he also admitted that Poland had yet to decide whether to accept or reject it.

"This is a consistent position. Until there is a concrete U.S. offer, we are asking questions. So far we have held a few technical talks with the U.S. but the American side has not taken any decision yet," he said.

it's their land, their decision.

Well said. Although I believe that Poland will accept the U.S. offer in the end, since the complete western hemisphere is going to benefit from it, the days of anticipatory obedience towards America seem to be over in Europe definitely. It is a sad irony of history that it was the former German administation of Schroeder and Fischer that broke with this antiquated taboo for the first time in a quite insensitive and moronic way. In the meantime other European nations seem to loose the respect over the US in a breathtaking manner as we see in this example. Who could think about a conservative (!) Polish Deputy Defence Minister sitting in the second row to criticise unchallenged such a fundamental corner of the US defence policy with this nonchalance just a few years ago??!

Personally I think that the emancipation of Europe from the all-dominant US-policy was nessecary. This is also in the well understood own interest of the US since the trans-atlantic relationship will be more honest than it was in the past. The way it was done from Germany and France is painful and awkward. No doubt about that. Schroeder, Chirac and Fischer are and were morons. Silent diplomacy and discrete communication between the leaders would have been helpful. And -last but not least: The occasion to show America its limits was badly chosen since Saddam Hussein was a problem hat had to be solved. But - what counts in the end: The taboo was broken.

Another irony of history is, that the US millitary is trapped in expensive (and in the long run insecure*) German installations while it is not said that all of "new Europe" is going to accept all US millitary with open arms. I.e. the political situation in Rumania is not that stable for US forces as often thought in America. When a (obviously drunk) US marine was involved into a car crash with the local rock star Teo Peter, who died in the accident, the Romanians found out that their politicians signed a treaty that does not give them the possibility to prosecute members of the US millitary on their own territory. Their own fault (it was the Romanians who signed that moronic treaty) caused broad outrage among the Romanian public. The fierce reaction reminds me a littlebit of the outrage on the Phillipines that preceded the decision of the Philippine Senate to reject terms for renewal of the lease of the bases Subic Bay and Clark in 1991 (this fact and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo made the US leave their main bases -that were as big as Ramstein- in the Pacific). The critical stance in Poland towards US-forces on their soil fits into the picture. I do not know if the Poles could accept 25.000 GIs on Polish bases if the US would want to leave Germany for political reasons. Maybe our Polish friends could give us their impression to this issue?

Probably many US-politicians are not aware about this tricky situation in Europe. The question will be how the European nations going to define themselves and their geopolitical course in the near future. If the trans-atlantic relation is to stay, NATO needs to be defined differently. The limitation on the North Atlantic is not up to date if we think about western nations like Australia, Japan or South Korea. Besides of that we need to clarify if a "offensive" defense with preemptive strikes is NATO policy or not. To the US NATO will be "useless" if they can not rely on support from their allies while to many Europeans it is simply not appropriate to take part in offensive wars (i.e. in Germany or Japan were they are forbidden by the constitution). Therefore we need a discussion about how far we want to go. If this discussion is finished our administrations need the possibility to act strong and fast within the defined frame. This would make the western alliance a strong force again.

* Due to the uncertain political situation in Germany. Politicians like Schoeder and Fischer, that have absolutey NO trans-atlantic backround could come to power with the next political generation. To them the US presence is just a political nuisance. In difference to Fischer and Schroeder they will not find a pro-american network (that is still existing but is being more and more eroded) in the decisive class that could prevent them from doing real damage. BTW - this kind of politician is not limited to Germany. A large fraction of the Labour party in the UK is quite anti-american. Same thing in France, Italy, Spain and the Benelux.

“the Romanians found out that their politicians signed a treaty that does not give them the possibility to prosecute members of the US millitary on their own territory. Their own fault (I” You said

Since you have no clue, let me clear some things up. It’s called a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and we even have one in Germany. Forces stationed in a host country are in a sort of legal limbo land. That does not mean they will not be prosecuted for crimes committed, but whether in Germany, Turkey, Romania or S. Korea, you have SOFA agreements that regulate the legal relationship between US service members and the host country. German soldiers in the US are in the same boat.

“The fierce reaction reminds me a littlebit of the outrage on the Phillipines that preceded the decision of the Philippine Senate to reject terms for renewal of the lease of the bases Subic Bay and Clark in 1991 (this fact and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo made the US leave their main bases -that were as big as Ramstein- in the Pacific).” You said

The US was already planning a massive draw down in the Philippines. The Cold War was over – Soviet bases even in Vietnam were closing. There was no reason to stay. The US didn’t try very hard to stay. When Pinatubo erupted it decimated the base. The USAF was not even able to evacuate all aircraft on the base and lost some of them too. The relationship US/Philippines is in all actuality very good.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/03/05/us.phil.combat/index.html

Truth is, in 2003 the Philippines “requested” US assistance which we provided. You are reinterpreting what happened. Once the US leaves Germany, you will probably claim that Germany threw the US out.

“ The critical stance in Poland towards US-forces on their soil fits into the picture. I do not know if the Poles could accept 25.000 GIs on Polish bases if the US would want to leave Germany for political reasons. Maybe our Polish friends could give us their impression to this issue?” You said

The US/Polish relationship is better than the US/German one. Like it or not, the US is disengaging from “Old Europe”. You are living in space. In some of the places facilities are already being built! Contracts signed, construction underway, plans in place, and the political decisions made, you are sitting here debating the feasibility of this while bulldozers are running!

The US is moving some stuff to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria in the defense sector. Other governmental agencies (FAA, CIA, NSA, USDA……. The whole alphabet soup) are moving to the same places but are also moving some stuff to Hungary, Great Britain or Austria.

The US will not entirely leave Germany, but they will not leave all their eggs in one basket as pre 2003. The risk is too big. It’s called risk management. In 2003 there were ranking political figures in Germany’s Greens who were pushing for a denial of over flight rights. What are those bases worth if you can’t fly into or out of them? Then you had the whole quagmire with Bad Aibling. The Germans ARE a strategic partner. However, they can not be completely trusted. Domestic internal politics often drives their foreign policy.

“To the US NATO will be "useless" if they can not rely on support from their allies while to many Europeans it is simply not appropriate to take part in offensive wars (i.e. in Germany or Japan were they are forbidden by the constitution).” You said

The fake Constitutional argument which was suspended in the Balkans when it fit into Germany’s agenda to be offensive. Was Germany directly threatened by Serbia? No. This is an argument of convenience. Bottom line is that when you have a relationship where some feel they have the right to leach off others and pay little of the cost they will generally not try to change this relationship unless forced. BTW- Japan had and has troops in Iraq.

“the days of anticipatory obedience towards America seem to be over in Europe definitely.” You said.

That never was the case even years ago. Even in the 60s the US had large disagreements with the Brits, French and others. This is again a reinterpretation of history. There were points of conflict years ago and there always will be. The difference is the Germans broke away from the “Realpolitik” as understood within political circles in the last 35+ years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

The relationship US Italy has not changed. The relationship US/France is as it has been since DeGaul. The US/Spain relationship has not changed either. What has changed is the US - German relationship.

"A large fraction of the Labour party in the UK is quite anti-American. Same thing in France, Italy, Spain and the Benelux." You said

I'm sure you can find an American hating Canadian or two as well. Our relationship is the same it always has been though. In fact the ties US - Poland / Romania / Bulgaria are getting stronger. You try to state the labor has Anti American tendencies? Blair and the Labour Party (Their left) BACKED the war in Iraq. They VOLUNTEERED space and are hosting the NSA facilities closed in Germany. These are things that happened under the “Labour Party”.

-Trust- is the basis of any relationship. The US no longer trusts Germany. Not that you are going NAZI or anything else. The US just knows that Germany sees no threat, cannot be forced to carry its own weight in international commitments from which their economy and way of life depend and and and. The new Euro-nationalist defines himself and strength through opposition to the US. Anticipatory obedience was never the case. What you had was a relationship where you could “trust” certain nations to abstain from interfering in matters from which they will benefit but are doing little for. Germany was no major contributor to the no fly zone enforcement in the North or South of Iraq. They were no major player in the support of the Kurds in the North, nor the inspections of WMD facilities until 1998. They did not participate in the military campaigns such as Desert Fox (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox ) nor others during the decade plus containment which the US was largely paying for. The German Navy did not play any large role in the inspection of ships, German troops were not stationed in Kuwait (Not in significant numbers) or in Saudi Arabia. After 1991 the Germans asked the question “Why did the Americans not take Saddam out?” 12 years later after Iraq was in violation of the armistice and UN mandates on 35 various counts they could not remember their own words. The words “Anticipatory obedience” changes the meaning from “backstabbing an ally” to something positive as if the Germans somehow were strong enough to stand up against the Americans and tell them “Nein”. It's a euphemism that in connotation of words tries to revers the real situation. Backstabbing now is somehow viewed as strong and sovereign.

I suggest you get back on your knees and crawl in front of some Muslim and ask for forgiveness. You should politically condemn cartoons, ban certain language, and for Gods sake, make no fun of Islam in your Fasching. You’re a big man alright. As I told you before- The Germans only have a big mouth with Americans because they know we won’t bomb them. With Libya they get on their knees. With Saddam they get on their knees. With Iran they get on their knees.

It is no surprise to me that you redefine the situation such that you are a victim, as the German always sees himself. Even the NAZI’s were victims of the Jews.

All you need to do is read where this article was generated and that alone should tell something about the agenda. China opposes NATO expansion in scope and members. They subtly play against any NATO ties in the Pacific. They oppose any missile defense system……. They are in security matters a geopolitical adversary. The German who sees himself as cosmopolitan, but in truth thinks provincially, has a hard time with this concept.

I would be surprised if Poland backs out of anything. This is simply an idea that fits into your picture, so you play it up. Sorry pal, GM isn’t broke, Schroeder did almost get reelected in 2005, Schroeder did play the anti-American card……… Keep on dreaming and keep quoting reliable sources from China or “der Spiegel” so far you have a very consistent pattern.

Since you have no clue, let me clear some things up. It’s called a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and we even have one in Germany. Forces stationed in a host country are in a sort of legal limbo land. That does not mean they will not be prosecuted for crimes committed, but whether in Germany, Turkey, Romania or S. Korea, you have SOFA agreements that regulate the legal relationship between US service members and the host country. German soldiers in the US are in the same boat.

Guess what? I already knew that. The question is what is the content of the SOFA. Fact is i.e. that Romania was the first country to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court. The Romanians already found out that this did not strenghten their political position with the rest of Europe (not even in "new" Europe). Since the big nations of Europe are those that they are completely dependent on, this was indeed a bad deal for them to do so far. Furthermore the Romanian justice has practially no possibility to prosecute GI's because their moronic leadership simply signed a lousy treaty. If you want to read more about the Peter's accident:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=24991&archive=true

In Germany a few US soldiers have a long experience with German police and justice since we did not give you the same conditions as Romanians did. Just ask your compatriots who spend their sentence in German jails for crimes they comitted in Germany. We also could send members of the US millitary to the ICC if it would be nessecary.

The US was already planning a massive draw down in the Philippines. The Cold War was over – Soviet bases even in Vietnam were closing. There was no reason to stay.

That might be true but it is a fact that they were de facto kicked out by the Philippine Senate that rejected terms for renewal of the lease of the base after facing a broad public opposition concerning the deployment. The smoking volcano and the changed security situation was just a convienient way to save face. I am sure that the US wanted to keep their infrastructure. Why was Ramstein and the other German bases maintained after the cold war although there was no strategical use for them anymore??!

Read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subic_Bay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Air_Base

The US were KICKED OUT.

The US/Polish relationship is better than the US/German one. Like it or not, the US is disengaging from “Old Europe”. You are living in space. In some of the places facilities are already being built! Contracts signed, construction underway, plans in place, and the political decisions made, you are sitting here debating the feasibility of this while bulldozers are running! The US is moving some stuff to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria in the defense sector. Other governmental agencies (FAA, CIA, NSA, USDA……. The whole alphabet soup) are moving to the same places but are also moving some stuff to Hungary, Great Britain or Austria. The US will not entirely leave Germany, but they will not leave all their eggs in one basket as pre 2003. The risk is too big. It’s called risk management. In 2003 there were ranking political figures in Germany’s Greens who were pushing for a denial of over flight rights. What are those bases worth if you can’t fly into or out of them? Then you had the whole quagmire with Bad Aibling. The Germans ARE a strategic partner. However, they can not be completely trusted. Domestic internal politics often drives their foreign policy.

I have absolutely no problem with US troops moving to Poland. In the past I even earned money with it since my own destruction company cleaned up some of the former US facillities in Augsburg. As a architect I will earn again money if something new on those areas is going to be buildt. Besides of that the huge US presence in Germany is politically and strategically obsolete. I say that as somebody on the conservative side in our country.

Beside of that I wish that the Poles have strong and reliable allies. It is in our own interest if our neighbours are stable and secure democracies. Therefore I have nothing against close relations between Poland and the US.

The relationship US Italy has not changed. The relationship US/France is as it has been since DeGaul. The US/Spain relationship has not changed either. What has changed is the US - German relationship.

Really??! Pictures say so much more than words:

Superduper allies! You are clueless and far from any European reality. Somehow you are affixed on Germany without taking notice of the rest. Your pointless point of view is just the expression of someone who wants to defend his country to the very end. This is honorable but makes a discussion really boring.

The new Euro-nationalist defines himself and strength through opposition to the US.

Really? Give me a example exept of the Schroeder/Fischer/Chirac thing. In fact the US are loosing their influence in Europe and the western Europeans are simply not that obedient anymore as they were during the cold war. Fundamental opposition against the US does not make any sense. We and even I as a "new Euro-nationalist" understand that. You are and stay (during the next decade) the biggest fish in the pond, but for sure you are not big enough to eat us. Therefore we should work together on a partnership base. The "master and servant" game will maybe work with Romania but with nobody else in Europe. Just ask the Poles here if they accept the same SOFA as the Romanians.

“backstabbing an ally”

Yeah yeah. Blood is flowing from my hands... Did we close our airspace to you? Did we close our harbours? Just clueless blahblah.

I suggest you get back on your knees and crawl in front of some Muslim and ask for forgiveness.

Ah well... As long it is a nice muslim girl in a sexy outfit (maybe a transparent headscarf and nothing else...) I could think about it.

It is no surprise to me that you redefine the situation such that you are a victim, as the German always sees himself. Even the NAZI’s were victims of the Jews.

Hehe! Not that long ago I saw a really funny cartoon from Austria. It showed the Austrian Jörg Haider together with his chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel in front of a large poster that said: "Yes - it is time to forgive the Jews". In Swabia were I come from, we have a bonmot: You have to learn to mourn without suffering ("Lerne klagen ohne zu leiden"). Anyway we are such poor victims that you Americans give us a warm place in Princeton to teach your youth about politics. Since my education is far better than the one of our old friend Joschka, I am looking forward to a professorship in one of your big univercities. If I have the job you are welcome to lead a tutorial course about whining and defending pointless points of view then.

Again- In Italy the US stood up a whole ABN brigade in 2004. In Great Britain the US has moved MORE of its Intel assets…… Even in “old Europe” we are not really leaving and nothing has changed except that the US is repositioning large parts out of Germany. Portugal (Azores), Spain (Rota etc), Italy (Vicenza, Naples etc), Great Britain, Netherlands…… NOTHING changing bud! In fact as in Italy and Great Britain there is an Increase in manpower and activity. Germany? The fact that Italy is withdrawing its troops from Iraq is meaningless – so is everyone else to include the US.

You can’t see the old European supra nationalists defining themselves through opposition to the US? Sure here is another example: “Europe will be no United States of Europe.” The new supra national Euro nationalist who puts Euro in front of everything define themselves in opposition to the US: “We don’t want US social standards here do we?”

You state the US is loosing influence and a wave of anti American politicians that are coming to power. Who is Merkel again? And what does the political situation look like for Villipien and Chirac?

When you talk about the US loosing influence remember this. Despite direct pressure even “threats” aimed those nations hoping to join the EU who were backing us in Iraq; Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Check Republic, Slovakia, Hungary (who withdrew in 2005), Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina; and others whom you may know like: Spain (Who withdrew in 2004), Italy, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Great Britain. There were some whom you never would have expected to go! Like the Ukraine. Of course the “unilateral” Americans had no support from the “multi-lateral” axis of Weasels (AKA France, Germany and Belgium) who speak on behalf of all of Europe. Schroeder said the Iraq war is bad, therefore Europe said the war is bad, because we all know, Germany and France (Europe’s “core” as they self stated several times) speaks on behalf of all others.

One also can’t forget how the Germans defined all those supporting the US as “Trash nations”. The German counter argument to the minor detail that the “unilateral” USA had 38 nations forces committed to the effort in Iraq! Other trash nations included but are not limited to: Australia, Japan, S. Korea and Singapore. However, the German coalition of strong men standing up against the hegemony USA (Something that was actually lifted from the Russian’s and echoed in the German media) had such great supporters as: China and Russia.

Let me make this in-mistakenly clear to you. Germany is not increasing in it’s influence anywhere. They are on a decline in near ALL aspects. They will not get a UN seat on the Security Council, they will not increase in influence in NATO and are in fact shrinking, their military is near insignificant, their economy is on it’s rear and as been so for a DECADE. Their population is on a decline, their influence in the Middle East has shrunk, and their economic power will be overshadowed by China and India within the next 20 years. Get this into your head – in 20 years you will be the worlds economic power number five. Even within the EU it is France that is moving to the forefront and overshadowing Germany. Nations like Poland are with no joke in mind over shadowing you in security matters. The emerging threat is Theater Ballistic Missiles, like in the Cold War where Germany was the center of gravity for the defense of whole Western Europe, this new role will most likely fall into the hands of the Poles. Pack your bags my friend - You’re fading into obscurity.

As to the Philippines- We paid for these installations. If we had been willing to “go to bat” for the issue we surely could still be there today. The US didn’t care and sat on the issue. No need combined with destroyed infrastructure equate – close down. Other example: http://www.strategic-air-command.com/bases/Homestead_AFB.htm (at about the same era) no need anymore and destroyed by Hurricane Andrews they closed the base. Besides, the Philippines have some serious internal security issues, for which they asked our assistance for. The Philippines as a nation have high crime, it at least use to be a corrupt government, they had a communist movement that was linked to their Muslim terror group Abu Saeff that is still active today. The Philippines has issues. 4 years after the Cold War ended, with the Soviets closing down shop in that region (Naval bases closing etc) there was no point in paying rent for a base that is destroyed and we don’t need anymore. But if you feel better – we were kicked out. As I said, after we leave Germany you can also claim that we were kicked out of there as well.

Finally the SOFA issue you address. I’ll address that later as I don’t have enough time in one day to fix your ignorance.

Lese Artikel VII, Paragraph 3 völlig durch.

ARTICLE VII

1.

SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE,

(A) THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE SENDING STATE SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE WITHIN THE RECEIVING STATE
ALL CRIMINAL AND DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION CONFERRED
ON THEM BY THE LAW OF THE SENDING STATE OVER ALL
PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE MILITARY LAW OF THAT STATE;

(B) THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECEIVING STATE SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE MEMBERS OF A FORCE OR CIVILIAN
COMPONENT AND THEIR DEPENDENTS WITH RESPECT TO
OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE
RECEIVING STATE AND PUNISHABLE BY THE LAW OF THAT
STATE.

2.—

(A) THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE SENDING STATE
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE MILITARY LAW OF THAT STATE WITH RESPECT TO OFFENCES, INCLUDING OFFENCES RELATING TO ITS SECURITY, PUNISHABLE BY THE LAW OF THE SENDING STATE, BUT NOT BY THE LAW OF THE RECEIVING STATE.

(B) THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECEIVING STATE SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
MEMBERS OF A FORCE OR CIVILIAN COMPONENT AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS WITH RESPECT TO OFFENCES, INCLUDING
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE SECURITY OF THAT STATE,
PUNISHABLE BY ITS LAW BUT NOT BY THE LAW OF THE SENDING STATE.

(C) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND OF
PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS ARTICLE A SECURITY OFFENCE AGAINST
A STATE SHALL INCLUDE (I) TREASON AGAINST THE STATE; (II) SABOTAGE, ESPIONAGE OR VIOLATION OF ANY LAW RELATING TO OFFICIAL SECRETS OF THAT STATE, OR SECRETS RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENCE OF THAT STATE.

3.

IN CASES WHERE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IS
CONCURRENT THE FOLLOWING RULES SHALL APPLY:
(A) THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE SENDING STATE SHALL
HAVE THE PRIMARY RIGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A
MEMBER OF A FORCE OR OF A CIVILIAN COMPONENT IN
RELATION TO

(I) OFFENCES SOLELY AGAINST THE PROPERTY OR SECURITY OF
THAT STATE, OR OFFENCES SOLELY AGAINST THE PERSON OR
PROPERTY OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE FORCE OR CIVILIAN
COMPONENT OF THAT STATE OR OF A DEPENDENT;

(II) OFFENCES ARISING OUT OF ANY ACT OR OMISSION DONE IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY.

(B) IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER OFFENCE THE AUTHORITIES OF
THE RECEIVING STATE SHALL HAVE THE PRIMARY RIGHT TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION.

(C) IF THE STATE HAVING THE PRIMARY RIGHT DECIDES NOT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, IT SHALL NOTIFY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE OTHER STATE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. THE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE HAVING THE PRIMARY RIGHT SHALL GIVE SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION TO A REQUEST FROM THE AUTHORITIES OF THE OTHER STATE FOR A WAIVER OF ITS RIGHT IN CASES WHERE THAT OTHER STATE CONSIDERS SUCH WAIVER TO BE OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE.

4.

THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT
IMPLY ANY RIGHT FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE
SENDING STATE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS
WHO ARE NATIONALS OF OR ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN THE
RECEIVING STATE, UNLESS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE FORCE
OF THE SENDING STATE.

5.-- (A) THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECEIVING AND SENDING
STATES SHALL ASSIST EACH OTHER IN THE ARREST OF
MEMBERS OF A FORCE OR CIVILIAN COMPONENT OR THEIR

--

1. I’m no lawyer, but I do know that you will NOT send anyone under a SOFA to any International Court even for known crimes committed while they were in performance of their duty. In fact some morons tried that and failed. General Sanchez is still laughing. http://www.vcorps.army.mil/leaders/default.htm (3.A.II)

2. Your blanket statement about our SOFA is outright BS. There are German soldiers stationed at Ft Bliss, Rucker and Holoman AFB. Your KSK gets a lot of its training in the US, at times German troop rotate through JRTC and and and. Soldiers in a host country are like diplomats and live in their own legal dimension. It has to be that way. Imagine the Saudi’s sentence a soldier to have his hand cut off for theft? In Germany Cannabis is legal. In a military organization issues of adultery and fraternization are destructive to good order and morale and unlike the civilian world are prosecuted. Imagine a German soldier commits murder in the US in a state where the Death penalty is implemented. A SOFA makes it possible for troops to operate in a host nation in a military capacity.

--

US presence in Germany- Hanau, Freidberg, Giessen, Darmstadt are all in the process of closing. I explained this to you before. Things don’t go that fast. The decisions were made largely in 2003-04 where and what goes, but many of the parts won’t move until 2007-08. Total manpower in Europe is staying just about constant, so what does this tell us?

Beziehungen muss man pflegen. The US simply does not care that much anymore. You have a LTC at USAREUR as an aid de camp working for General Bell making statements that Germans are all heathens and savages (LTC Sexton), and it’s overlooked. No action taken. 20 years ago he would have gotten crushed. You mention the Philippines; maybe you should read into the situation a bit more. If you don’t care anymore in a marriage, things fall apart. The antagonistic rambunctious behavior is over since Schroeder is gone, but the bad after taste remains. (No more “Axis of weasels” or “old Europe” speeches from us, no more "no blood for oil” from the Germans)

I do not share the opinion of some in the military. While I find Schroeder a disgusting individual, the US is not without shameful low lives itself. It’s not meant as an insult but as a German with some pride you will take it that way – Germany is fading in importance on the international stage. All indicators point to that fact. Nonetheless, Germany does matter and they do share all our national interests. We are of European descent and by one vote we almost spoke German as our language. I myself am of German origin. We spilled a lot of blood together over 50 years. It’s not cool to act like a dork as Schroeder did and some in our military need to realize that Germans have died in Afghanistan since 2001, had troops in Somalia (In the North 1993), Cambodia (Humanitarian), Kuwait (Containment of Iraq), Turkey (Desert Storm)……. Germany does not carry its weight, but it is not as if they do nothing. While the US Navy goes off to fight in the Persian Gulf they cover down in the Mediterranean and some other places. The US has drawn logical conclusions reference risk management and troop stationing in Europe from the era Schroeder. There is no need for the US to perpetuate this damage and widen it further especially now, that the actual antagonist is out of office.

Political opportunism in 2002 by Schroeder led to a split in US/German relations that have been “institutionalized” on the American side at this point all the way to the highest levels. Just like the German can’t understand why some Jews still resent Germany, your nonchalant attempt to brush off Germany’s actions in 2002-03 with some satire to make light of the situation won’t help. I imagine that if my government had put the lives of Germans at risk needlessly for nothing but internal political selfish reasons; and if I defended their actions as “lighthearted” as you do, you would probably not be too impressed. But you are one of those supra national Euro nationalists, so you won’t think of it from that perspective. Self-absorbed and convinced of your superior German intellect you like so many of your compatriots think yourself to be cosmopolitan, but in reality think provincially.

The Germans are a confused people. There is no pragmatism left in their ideological world. Soon you will pay 19% MWST and get a 1% Robin Hood tax slapped on you as well. We’ll see where that takes the German economy that is doing just so well. The Germans don’t know what they want nor where they are heading. They are unable to deal with their past, internally split over whether to be a Socialist state or not……. As I said before, they have a hard time discerning their enemy’s from their friends.

It is funny to me that you always point out on the American troop reduction in Germany since all this millitary BS is really secondary in the meantime. I do not think that we have to argue over the fact that the vast majority of my compatriots is more than happy that US forces leave our country. There might be some whining majors in those communities that still have a large economic depency on the US troops, but this is for sure of no importance for Germany as a whole. And if we talk about our security - just read post #6. Most Germans do not think that different about this point than the Poles. Since those troops do not have a strategic security function for Europe anymore the only reason for their existence is to be a strategic reserve for US operations in the middle east. Since we do not want to be involved into your business there, it is not bad if they will be located in Romania, Great Britain, the Netherlands or elsewhere and NOT in Germany. The remaining 24.000 GIs are still enough to cause lots of needless trouble between our administrations in the future (you are dammed right - you can not trust into open skies and open harbours in Germany forever). Therefore even most conservative Germans are in favour of your troop reduction even if they do not say it open. To us a incorporation command with 500 - 1000 GIs in German would be really more than enough. We are not interested into fundamental disputes with the US. Help the Romanians with your bases and troops!

Besides - just ask Romano Prodi or José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero if they want to harbour those 24.500 troops that are now to stay in Germany. (Buhuhaha!)

Everything changed, since those groups in the European society that are still in favor of the contemporary American policy are eroded in a breathtaking manner. Maybe Angela Merkel has a differentiated point of view, maybe Tony Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi have a differentiated point of view, maybe even I have a differentiated point of view. The problem is that the upcoming young generation lacks any political pro-American sentiment. This is for sure not restricted on Germany. Therefore we have to deal with politicians that will have no stoppage to break all those taboos (closed airspaces etc.) against your remaining deployment in Germany within the next decade. Schroeder and Fischer were just a starter.

What also has changed is that people like me do not see the US deployment as a increase to our own German security. I and many of my compatriots have much more faith into other allies (i.e. France) of ours than into the US, since those allies have a fundamental reason to fight side by side with us in the case of a conflict. If i.e. the use of nuclear warheads is needed, you can be assured that the French will have a much more nervous hand on the red button if something happens in Europe than the US would ever have for obvious reasons. To put it straight: We do not trust you either. That was somehow different during the cold war. But you see - the times are a changing. P.S. The American will to risk something for Europe is obviously very limited. Just ask the Poles who wanted to be adopted into the visa waiver program. It took years, tears and much offense until it came true. Allies that act that selfish in minor questions are not exactly those to trust in a bigger frame. The members of your administration are public relation wizards.

The common values that fade away are much more important than all this millitary BS. We both had a discussion about the sense of draconic punishment i.e.. The US and its citizens are in favour of capital punishment for crimes of violence and long time imprisonment for even minor crimes. As a conservative I understand this to a certain point, although I see no benefit in it, since I have the impression that our society is safer (we discussed this already - repetita non placent!). The thing is that the American image in Europe is for sure not better than the one of Red China after Gitmo, Abu Grahib and after some reports about your justice system. You are not on the "good side" anymore after a few reports of Amnesty International, the NYT and the Spiegel. I am well aware that most of this is BS, but do you think that the sons of Tony Blair will help you out with troops in -let's say- 2015? For most people in western Europe your empire is as evil in the meantime as the Russians were in the 80ties. This is a high price for the bad public relations policy of your administration.

The combination of a upcoming non-atlantic generation of politicians and a horrible imagine of the US in the European public is THE fundamental loss of American influence in western Europe. Maybe there are some reasonable politicians like Angela Merkel or Tony Blair left in the moment that will remain on America's side during their turn, but what will come after them? Therefore - I am not sad if your troops pack their things and go because they will be no bone of contention in the near future then.

You can’t see the old European supra nationalists defining themselves through opposition to the US? Sure here is another example: “Europe will be no United States of Europe.” The new supra national Euro nationalist who puts Euro in front of everything define themselves in opposition to the US: “We don’t want US social standards here do we?”

Wait and see. The European process of integration started in 1952 with the Franco-Allemand Montanunion and the treaties of Rome in 1957. It grew bigger and bigger. There were many throwbacks, but in the end there was always much more Europe than it was before. I do not believe in a broad "United States of Europe" either, but I am sure that the core nations of continental Europe will find together sooner or later.

And what does the political situation look like for Villipien and Chirac?

The political situation of both looks bad, but this has nothing to do with their foreign politics. It is quite likely that Ségolène Royal will be Madame la presidente soon. Her anti-American course will be much sharper than the one of those two clowns.

They will not get a UN seat on the Security Council, they will not increase in influence in NATO and are in fact shrinking, their military is near insignificant, their economy is on it’s rear and as been so for a DECADE. Their population is on a decline, their influence in the Middle East has shrunk, and their economic power will be overshadowed by China and India within the next 20 years. Get this into your head – in 20 years you will be the worlds economic power number five. Even within the EU it is France that is moving to the forefront and overshadowing Germany. Nations like Poland are with no joke in mind over shadowing you in security matters.

Yawn. Maybe it is not understandable for you, but it is not very effective to play "Superpower". It costs money and blood. The German UN seat on the Security Council was one of Schroeder's and Fischer's most moronic ideas. The thing is that such a seat would mean, that German money and troops would be needed on all places of this planet due to our grown "importance" and "responsibility". This is something I can do without. Believe it or not. Since the US devaluated the SC by ignoring it with their approach in the recent Iraq war, it is just a irrelevant talking shop anyway. Germany is just a middle power that does best if it keeps out of the global politics. It is far enough that the Brits and the French are representing our interests there.

The rest of your moronic decline blah-blah is too ridicolous to answer it. Just political masturbation. Yes - China and India are on the march. But be careful that their boots will not walk over your economy too. As far as I know large parts of your economy will have fundamental problems to face this threat. Besides of that your trade deficit (not to speak about your other deficits) with the Chinese is on a all time high.

The emerging threat is Theater Ballistic Missiles, like in the Cold War where Germany was the center of gravity for the defense of whole Western Europe, this new role will most likely fall into the hands of the Poles. Pack your bags my friend - You’re fading into obscurity.

Believe it or not - it was not funny to play the "center of gravity for the defense of whole Western Europe". We are really happy to leave this role behind and I have doubts that the Poles are gung ho to take this role from us. BuHuHaHa! Just read post #6 and #7 of this thread. You are such a clown.

As I said, after we leave Germany you can also claim that we were kicked out of there as well.

You were not kicked out of Germany so far.

I do not say that the sky is falling down for America in Europe. Anyway the US are facing completely a different situation in western Europe (I am speaking about "old" Europe that was under US rule in the cold war) than they did in the beginning 90ties and during the cold war. Germany simply was occupied until 1991 and America understood it as its very own swimming pool. It is of course a fact that the Americans were the nicest occupants you can think of, but they were occupants and we Germans knew it. During the 80ties a broad leftist peacenick movement was dominiating the political German scene, although the German administration (no matter if SPD or CDU) decided to follow the NATO line to base nuclear armed Pershing II and Cruise missles in Germany to counter the Soviet deployment of SS 20 missles in eastern Europe. This peacenik movement was the "mother" of the Greens, Joschka Fischer and Gerhard Schröder.

They and the "68"-generation of Rudi Dutschke (Otto Schilly i.e.) were the first, who were open against any US deployment in Europe. When they came into power after their so called "march through the institutions" they had not enough Germans behind them to "kick the Americans out", but it was enough for a sharp and critical course towards America. I think that this will change since there is no broad pro-American movement in Germany anymore since the 60ties and those who are in favor of the US are simply dying out. My father i.e. was always a stauch friend of the US, no matter if their policy was in our German interest or not. Outside his generation you will find only very few people who still think that way. In the political German scene the "Atlantic" politicians like Leisler Kiep, Schmidt, Strauss, Graf Lambsdoff, Genscher or Kohl are fading away.

The sky will not fall down, but the situation has changed in a fundamental way. As long as the German chancellor is called Merkel Germany will not change anything in the policy concerning the US deployment. If she is going to leave her administration everything is open.

During the recent Iraq war the "Junge Union", the youth organisation of the CDU, made a action that was called "Saddam entwaffnen" (disarm Saddam). They wanted to back the US and their forces in the (really non objective and anti-American) internal German discussion at that time. Something happened although their leaders could press the open scandal away: It was the first time that this really staunch pro-US organisation was facing a broad internal discussion about the sense of such a action since some of their local leaders refused to take part.

You see - even not in the CDU the things are that setteled anymore. Not to speak about the SPD, the FDP or the Greens. Angela Merkel is trimming the CDU in the moment for the possibility of a future coalition with the Greens. I.e. she accepted lots of BS like the "Gleichstellungsgesetz" (Feminazi-gender-BS) or is in favour of the homosexual marriage without any need. Since she has no structural majority together with the FDP this is a reasonable thing for her to do (because of political pragmatism). BUT - concerning the relations with the US it is really quite dangerous in the long term to open the way for the anti-American Greens again.

P.S. I do not think that being critical towards the US and their policy is a proof to anti-Americanism. If we Germans want to keep the US as our friends we have to find a new basement with them since the old will not able to work under pressure in the future anymore.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.