Posted on 07/15/2009 6:54:44 AM PDT by SolidWood
So far the news is only in German language.
To sum it up... because German lefties and enviros succesfully protested a military testing area ("Bombodrom") a center-right German state prime minister (Wulff of Lower Saxonia) suggested testing bombardments and ordninance in Alaska.
Key quote:"It doesn't have to be necessairly in Germany."
This is insane. They can't test for their own military in their own country because of some enviromentalists? Were do they want to maneuver in Alaska? ANWR?
Here an online Translation (probably with several mistranslations):
It contradicted therewith its party colleague, Minister of Defense Franz Josef boy. "This load with bomb droppings is not in the thickly populated Germany permanently to take responsibility for". Young had said on the other hand in Berlin on Monday: "The Federal Armed Forces must if it should defend Germany, also can" practice in Germany. After the renunciation of the practice place Wittstock, boy does not want to forgo also yet the locations north horn and victory castle in Bavaria.
Wulff wants to reach first of all a slighter load the "north of horn ranks". "The closing is us most dearly whether that goes short-termed, can doubt one. The least is now that there are binding promises, that it a reduction of the load gives". The persons in the region expected right such a perspective.
According to the defense ministry, already 75 percent of all practices take place abroad. There had been 2007 altogether 1650 uses, in the lower saxony north horn therefrom only 318, in the Bavarian victory castle 95: The practice places would not be replace also by simulation.
Why not test in Afghanistan?
Here is some news for him - our own environmentalists would raise such a stink and engage in such legal logjams that it would not be possible for them to use a part of Alaska either. Couldn’t happen.
why not France?
You do realize that the German Air Force already has bases in the U.S.? El Paso and New Mexico if recollection serves me right.
Yes, I know. But I don’t see a reason for them to bomb in Alaska just because they are to wussy to confront their own enviromentalist nuts.
Why not?
I’ve lobbed, launched and thrown hundreds of tons of ordnance all over Grafenwoehr.
Seems only fair.
There’s one a Dulles Airport in Virginia as well. It’s small, primarily offices and a motorpool. . .but it’s Luftwaffe. . .
I don't remember the Germans taking up security duties for the US... we stationed our troops to protect Europe from the Reds and not at least we were there as Victors.
Just because the Germans are groweling before some tree-huggers, they should get to bomb in the US? Doesn't sound appropiate to me.
You seem to forget that they probably ‘pay’ for those services as well as are a member of NATO.
Also, the entire country of Germany is about the size of Florida and has a population of about 1/3 of the United States which means it is VERY heavily populated. There are not a whole lot of areas to practice bombing runs etc..
German forces are e.g. on guard for several army sites in germany.
Also there’s german troops in afghanistan if you’d like to count that into securtiy duties for the US.
Did you know that the first MIG shot down during irak war 1 was lead by a german airforce officer on board of a NATO AWACS ? He commanded two F104s from the italian airforce to take out the 2 migs heading for the awacs.
I am aware that Germany is doing it’s (albeit comparetively small) share on global security matters... but it’s in little relation to what the US had done and is doing, not only for Germany but all of Europe. There can be hardly a denial that the US is bearing the overwhelming brunt of responsibility, costs and casualites.
And I take issue with the argumentation that because they can’t deal with some aging hippies who foiled their perfectly suited “bombodrome”, they should get US territory. Why don’t they ask other allies like Canada (NATO) with even larger and more remote areas, or Australia? Australia (although non-NATO) especially is suited to test Afghanistan like conditions, unlike freezy Alaska.
We did A LOT of training in Germany, and you can’t say that 100% of that training was a direct benefit to Germany.
Sure, we were there, but the skills we developed there are being used WORLDWIDE.
They’ve been a good ally.
Now, they’re being targeted from within.
I have no problem letting them us US ranges, but I am concerned that it will lessen their will to fight the enemy at home.
Ah heck, it ain’t as if they hadn’t already tested them nearby - in Poland, Spain, France, Greece, Yugoslvia, Serbia, Russia, ... - before.
Why not do it again over here this time?
The Luftwaffe already conducts training in New Mexico around White Sands, Holloman and Cannon.
We have ranges they're welcome to use, but there are intelligence difficulties inherent in doing one's weapons development in a foreign country, even a close ally. And it really doesn't address the issue that some of the Greens have, as their acknowledged object, the suppression of all things military on principle. These are not generally all that accepting of the notion that their utopian ideology is going to have to accept some limits, and that "no" is an acceptable answer. And unfortunately the tools of power given to them by a democratic society - laws, courts, protected civil disobedience - become tools of tyranny if there are no limits placed upon them. It is an ancient and foolish notion that if one prevents the preparation for battle that there will be no war. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
There is no German base in El Paso.
Let the Germans practice at bomb ranges in the western US. After all, Germany is one of our military dependents.
Italy did not deploy any F-104s to the Gulf. They only flew Tornados during the Persian Gulf War.
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.