US to allow foreign countries to set up bases at home

[a_unique_person]

The US, as part of a process of reducing criticism that it is too domineering and imperialist, stated today that it will be opening up parts of the US to foreign countries for setting up bases inside it. The countries that will be invited to set up bases will be all those countries that the US has bases in at present.

It is believed the Japanese will be setting up a naval base in Hawii.

The Phillipines will be creating an army base in California, Turkey an air base in Idaho, Britain a nuclear weapons base in Washington and Korea an army base on the Mexican border.

The Whitehouse spokesman stated that he hoped this would show the US was not just interested in dominating world affairs, but in genuine and equal co-operation with all it's free world partners.

[Fade]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
lots of stuff here

Joke of some sort?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade


Joke of some sort?

so they aren't ready to give me a job at the onion yet

[demon]

:D

[shemp]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


so they aren't ready to give me a job at the onion yet

No, you gotta lengthen it and spice it up a bit. Add some stuff about problems with drunken Japanese sailors busting up bars in Honolulu, Turks fathering illegitimate babies by Idaho women, complaints from locals, etc. Don't forget to mention how much money these countries' bases pump into the U.S. economy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shemp


No, you gotta lengthen it and spice it up a bit. Add some stuff about problems with drunken Japanese sailors busting up bars in Honolulu, Turks fathering illegitimate babies by Idaho women, complaints from locals, etc. Don't forget to mention how much money these countries' bases pump into the U.S. economy.

You and me shemp, what a team. The US economy could do with those extra yen and the women could make some easy dollars.

[Doubt]

*Ahem*

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no13/vo12no13_luftwaffe.htm


On May 1st, Secretary of Defense William Perry took part in a ceremony at New Mexico's Holloman Air Force Base marking the official opening of a German military installation there. The facility is the first permanent military installation established in the United States by a foreign nation.


(Bolding by me)

http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/25/new.mexico.crash/


The German air force, known as the Luftwaffe, uses the desert base for joint training with U.S. Air Force pilots in part because of limited air space in Germany.

[The Don]

New Mexican camp followers, German military personnel

For goodness sake won't somebody please think of the gene pool

[a_unique_person]

Did you read the rest of that article?



The creation of an official German base in New Mexico is another step toward the creation of an internationally controlled military force. NATO, a creature of the United Nations, seems earmarked to supply the military arm that the UN has always wanted. While each of the 16 NATO nations wields one-sixteenth of NATO's decision-making authority, Germany and the United States are militarily the alliance's most important members. Having these two NATO powers entangled more tightly will undoubtedly strengthen NATO.

Secretary Perry and others maintain that having a German base within the U.S. is a sign of great progress. But progress toward what? There is no military threat to this nation that would remotely justify inviting forces from other nations to take up positions within our borders. Even at the height of the Cold War, when our own leaders constantly told us that the Soviet Union was a significant potential adversary, no one suggested that foreign military personnel set up bases here. Now that Germany has been permitted to establish a base within our borders, what's to keep other nations from being invited to do likewise?



it's going to be a while before the next base opens up there.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Did you read the rest of that article?



it's going to be a while before the next base opens up there.

I would not be so sure about that. New Mexico is a great place for low level flight training. Other countries do send units to the US for training on a regular basis. They just don't stay here. Most likely the reason you won't see many other permanent assignments to the US is the cost.

The reason you have never heard about the Germans in the US is because nobody here decided it was a problem. Could it be that Americans are not as xenophobic as some other cultures?

[BillyTK]

I read somewhere that HM Queen has bits of New York in her property portfolio; perhaps we could build a British base there?

[Michael Redman]

I liked the idea of the Japanese building a naval base in Hawaii. That was funny.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

so they aren't ready to give me a job at the onion yet
Maybe add a little human interest. How does this affect "local man"?

[Diezel]

NAS Oceania (VA Beach, and now hosts Top Gun, after Mirimar closed) has always had waves of foreign pilots coming in and training with their aggresor squadron, VF-101. They would be there anywhere from a month to 6 months. Many other bases had the same type of agreements.

We've had foreign military on US soil for a long time and nobody seems to care very much.

[DanishDynamite]

Doubt: Could it be that Americans are not as xenophobic as some other cultures? :D Good one!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel
NAS Oceania (VA Beach, and now hosts Top Gun, after Mirimar closed) has always had waves of foreign pilots coming in and training with their aggresor squadron, VF-101. They would be there anywhere from a month to 6 months. Many other bases had the same type of agreements.

We've had foreign military on US soil for a long time and nobody seems to care very much.

military yes, but not bases actually commanded by foreigners, that are closed to outsiders, that is, americans, in this case.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


military yes, but not bases actually commanded by foreigners, that are closed to outsiders, that is, americans, in this case.

I doubt it would cause as big a stir as you think it would.

Besides, please list out the strategic advantage of other countries having bases in the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel


I doubt it would cause as big a stir as you think it would.

Besides, please list out the strategic advantage of other countries having bases in the US.

about the same strategic advantage of the US bases in the other countries.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


about the same strategic advantage of the US bases in the other countries.

And, again, you show your complete ignorance on military planning, strategy and affairs. Good to see you haven't changed. :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Diezel


And, again, you show your complete ignorance on military planning, strategy and affairs. Good to see you haven't changed. :)


Well, I guess it's unanimous then...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diezel


And, again, you show your complete ignorance on military planning, strategy and affairs. Good to see you haven't changed. :)

once again, you show your inability to see the world in other than US centric terms.

Why does the US need a base in Japan? The Japanese don't won't it there, ditto the Phillipines. whose strategy are we talking about?

There is pine gap in Australia, with rooms that no australians are permitted to enter. We can trust you, but you can't trust us.

what's in there, some more pot plants like in falcon and the snowman?

[LibraryFox]

Originally posted by Diezel
NAS Oceania (VA Beach, and now hosts Top Gun, after Mirimar closed)
Minor Technical Note: Miramar was not closed, but turned over to the Marines, and currently acts as base for the 3rd Marine Air Wing.
-Library Fox

[Richard G]

Without the U.S. presence in SE Asia, North Korea and China would both have already overrun the entire region.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
Without the U.S. presence in SE Asia, North Korea and China would both have already overrun the entire region.

that was always debateable. who is threatening japan and the philipines now?

[crackmonkey]

North Korea and China, to name two blatantly obvious choices...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
North Korea and China, to name two blatantly obvious choices...


but do the japanese want the bases there?

[a_unique_person]

'There is Okinawa Among the Bases'

Even after the right to rule Okinawa was returned to mainland Japan, the massive groups of American bases were permitted to remain. Even now, 75 percent of American military bases in Japan are on Okinawa. On 11.1 percent of the greenest portions of the prefecture are banners of the four US military forces. There are many self governing entities which have to deal with more military area than residential. People describe this situation in a somewhat self ridiculing manner as 'Okinawa existing among the bases.'

Uninterrupted aircraft noise, rounds being fired over prefectural highways, accidents, environmental destruction, high incidents of crime, are just some of the things citizens must face as part of their everyday lives. It is true that after the island reverted to Japan a great deal of capital was brought in and that the area became a tourist attraction, but there was no real change in the structure of the 'military and the bases.' This was also proved in the Gulf War. The first US soldiers to be sent to that conflict from the Pacific left from Okinawa.

'Base Reduction Requests' That Are Not Accepted

When the Cold War ended, it seemed the time Okinawa residents had been waiting for had finally come. According to public polling, over half felt that 'the bases were no longer necessary.' Governor Masahide O'ta, who spent time in the military in the 'Iron and Blood Royal Division' at the age of 19 when he was in Normal school, approached both Japan and America (where he had once studied) with a request to use this opportunity as a way to greatly reduce the bases.

But it looks like citizens' hopes will not be realized again. The high ranking officials insist on 'co-existence with US bases on Okinawa.' They stress that Okinawa is still important as a sign that Japan retains its commitment to the Japan-US Security Pact. In the 'East Asia Strategy Report' which was put out by the US Department of Defense, it is pointed out that Okinawa makes it 'cheaper to keep forward deployment than in the States.' It seems that all that will happen is the return of three small facilities.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
North Korea and China, to name two blatantly obvious choices...

China is a funny one. The current administration was lining them up to be the bad boys before 9/11. Suddenly, they are good again, and Saddam is the bad boy.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


China is a funny one. The current administration was lining them up to be the bad boys before 9/11. Suddenly, they are good again, and Saddam is the bad boy.

Who exactly has stated that China is in the administration's good graces "again"???

[Mike B.]

Ummm...
Isn't North Korea thretening Japan and testing its missles dangerously close to the country?

Also, isn't the main US base in the Philipines closed since 1993?

Also,
It is no doubt easy to play the Nationalist card by the politicans in these various countries. However when push comes to shove has a the Prime Minister of Japan ever asked the US to leave and the US refused?

Likewise,
Has the Republic of Korean government done this?

In fact I think many of the politicians in these countries are showing the worse kind of moral cowardice. Rally the people against the foreigners and then ask the US not to leave...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Ummm...
Isn't North Korea thretening Japan and testing its missles dangerously close to the country?

Also, isn't the main US base in the Philipines closed since 1993?

Also,
It is no doubt easy to play the Nationalist card by the politicans in these various countries. However when push comes to shove has a the Prime Minister of Japan ever asked the US to leave and the US refused?

Likewise,
Has the Republic of Korean government done this?

In fact I think many of the politicians in these countries are showing the worse kind of moral cowardice. Rally the people against the foreigners and then ask the US not to leave...

Japan has, iirc, the worlds second biggest economy. do they still need US to hold their hands?

[crackmonkey]

Apparently so, huh?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Japan has, iirc, the worlds second biggest economy. do they still need US to hold their hands?

Yes.

[Shane Costello]

Isn't it the case the European welfare states were funded in a large part by the money those governments saved on defense, due to the continuing US military presence?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Isn't it the case the European welfare states were funded in a large part by the money those governments saved on defense, due to the continuing US military presence?

Ha! They'll probably retort by claiming to be equal partners with the U.S. in NATO!! :eek:



:rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Might I point out that North Korea is a distinct and declared threat to the Japanese, and has test-fired ballistic missiles over their country.

[Tmy]

maybe we should have foriegn bases. Think of how much we could charge for user fees!! Itd be great for the encomy

[DanishDynamite]

Shane:Isn't it the case the European welfare states were funded in a large part by the money those governments saved on defense, due to the continuing US military presence? No. In Denmark, military spending is less than 2% of GDP, while social expenditures are over 28% of GDP. Doubling or tribling military spending to reach US levels, would hardly destroy the welfare system.

"Milage will vary" for other EU countries.

Kodiak:Ha! They'll probably retort by claiming to be equal partners with the U.S. in NATO!! :eek:


:rolleyes: I would claim no such thing. I remeber Claus Larsen working out the numbers once, and it turned out that military spending among non-US countries in NATO accounted for about 40% of NATO's total. I expect the percentage has dropped since.

Oddly enough, I'm in favor of increased military spending by European countries. The reason, however, has nothing to do with terrorism.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Kodiak:

I would claim no such thing. I remember Claus Larsen working out the numbers once, and it turned out that military spending among non-US countries in NATO accounted for about 40% of NATO's total. I expect the percentage has dropped since.

Oddly enough, I'm in favor of increased military spending by European countries. The reason, however, has nothing to do with terrorism.

Hey, DD...

You've aroused my curiosity...why are you in favor of increased military spending by European countries, and you do prefer autonomous armed forces for each country, or a military that answers to the European Union?

[Wile E. Coyote]

I was under the impression (from history classes in high school), that Japan was forbidden from having a military force as a condition of surrender in WWII. The benefits of Japan not having to maintain military forces for 50 years was probably a great boon to its economy, and I recall seeing news items in 1996 indicating that Japan wished to continue the relationship it had between itself and the US.

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:Hey, DD...

You've aroused my curiosity...why are you in favor of increased military spending by European countries, and you do prefer autonomous armed forces for each country, or a military that answers to the European Union? Heh! I knew I could count on you asking this question. :)

The reason, I'm sorry to say, is that without the Soviet Union as counterweight, the US seems to have let their military power rise to their heads. The constant unilateralism is unnerving. Lip service is paid to the opinion of "allies". Perhaps it would be better if the EU beefed up. We have a saying here (which I'm not sure translates well): "Equal children play together best". (The "equal" bit refers to the children's economic/social status).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by tjwojo
I was under the impression (from history classes in high school), that Japan was forbidden from having a military force as a condition of surrender in WWII. The benefits of Japan not having to maintain military forces for 50 years was probably a great boon to its economy, and I recall seeing news items in 1996 indicating that Japan wished to continue the relationship it had between itself and the US.

japan is allowed to have a 'self defense force'.

[Mike B.]

The Japanese Self-Defense Force can not exceed 1% of GDP.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
No. In Denmark, military spending is less than 2% of GDP, while social expenditures are over 28% of GDP. Doubling or tribling military spending to reach US levels, would hardly destroy the welfare system.

I don't actually think this is a fair comparison. A more relevant one would be a scenario in which Denmark raised military expenditure to the level of Switzerland, and the effect this might have on social expenditure.

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:I don't actually think this is a fair comparison. A more relevant one would be a scenario in which Denmark raised military expenditure to the level of Switzerland, and the effect this might have on social expenditure. I must admit I'm a little mystified. According to the CIA Factbook, Denmark would actually need to decrease its military spending to reach Switzerland's level.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
The Japanese Self-Defense Force can not exceed 1% of GDP.

given the wealth of NK, I would say Japan would comfortably be able to deal with any problems.

[ahirst]

Then they'd better get ready.


The stand-off with North Korea is getting nastier, with the regime threatening pre-emptive action if America sends military reinforcements to the region.

Full article at: http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1563813

Doesn't look too good.

:(

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Kodiak: Heh! I knew I could count on you asking this question. :)

The reason, I'm sorry to say, is that without the Soviet Union as counterweight, the US seems to have let their military power rise to their heads. The constant unilateralism is unnerving. Lip service is paid to the opinion of "allies". Perhaps it would be better if the EU beefed up. We have a saying here (which I'm not sure translates well): "Equal children play together best". (The "equal" bit refers to the children's economic/social status).


We have a saying too...

"Don't come begging for help, and then criticize the manner in which we provide it."


France and Germany think that more intense and focused inspections are the correct response to Iraq's 12 years of violating terms of surrender and multiple UN resolutions.

Are they once again hoping for "Peace in our Time"??? :rolleyes:

The policy makers in France and Germany have extremely short memories, it seems...

[Drooper]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Shane Costello: I must admit I'm a little mystified. According to the CIA Factbook, Denmark would actually need to decrease its military spending to reach Switzerland's level.

I don't think Switzerland maintiains a particularly large standing army, which is the expensive bit. Over there everyone has to be a reserve and have their own gun don't they?

That's much sheaper than paying them a wage, feeding, housing and clothing them etc.

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:We have a saying too...

"Don't come begging for help, and then criticize the manner in which we provide it."How does this relate to anything? Who is begging for help?

France and Germany think that more intense and focused inspections are the correct response to Iraq's 12 years of violating terms of surrender and multiple UN resolutions. Not true. Iraq cooperated from 1991 to 1996. 5 years. How long were the UN inspectors supposed to continue inspections? Forever?

Are they once again hoping for "Peace in our Time"??? :rolleyes: Isn't everyone?

The policy makers in France and Germany have extremely short memories, it seems... I assume you are referring to Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler. Chamberlain was British.

BTW, I forgot to answer your question regarding which type of EU military structure I'd prefer. For the moment, I would prefer a NATO style structure.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


given the wealth of NK, I would say Japan would comfortably be able to deal with any problems.

You are equating military might with $. North Korea's entire economy is roughly $22 Billion. However $5 Billion is spent on the army, with that relatively small amount they have been able to field an army well over 1,000,000...

You tried this argument before about the US spending too much $ on the military. A dollar in NK goes along way as far as wages, etc. compared to lots of other countries...

BTW,
If you think Japan should start paying for its defense more. I will agree. I think they prefer to have us there as a "trip-wire."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Iraq cooperated from 1991 to 1996. 5 years. How long were the UN inspectors supposed to continue inspections? Forever?

I mentioned terms of surrender, also. Iraq was in violation of several of those terms during those years.



Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I assume you are referring to Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler. Chamberlain was British.

My love for military history revealed this fact to me long ago.

Chamberlain's appeasement of the German Reich resulted in both an unchecked German war machine as well as the invasion and defeat of most of Western Europe (which included France).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I mentioned terms of surrender, also. Iraq was in violation of several of those terms during those years.





My love for military history revealed this fact to me long ago.

Chamberlain's appeasement of the German Reich resulted in both an unchecked German war machine as well as the invasion and defeat of most of Western Europe (which included France).

any comparison between hitler and sadaam is completely wrong. while saddam might dream of being hitler, he has already shown it is all a pipe dream. the war with iran clearly demonstrates his total military incompetence.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Iraq cooperated from 1991 to 1996. 5 years...

You must have a funny definition of "cooperated."

I was on the guided missile destroyer USS BARRY in 1994 off the coast of Bosnia when our ship, along with a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, were pulled away in the middle of the night (literally) and had to rush hellbent for leather for the Persian Gulf to prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait again.

Not to even mention the dozens (?) of shooting skirmishes enforcing the No Fly Zone.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Iraq cooperated from 1991 to 1996. 5 years...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must have a funny definition of "cooperated."

I was on the guided missile destroyer USS BARRY in 1994 off the coast of Bosnia when our ship, along with a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, were pulled away in the middle of the night (literally) and had to rush hellbent for leather for the Persian Gulf to prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait again. Not sure what you are referring to. I got my info from this timeline. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html)

Not to even mention the dozens (?) of shooting skirmishes enforcing the No Fly Zone. The No-Fly zones are not backed by UN resolutions. As Kofi Annan himself has stated, the Iraquis have every right to fire or target the planes invading their airspace. I posted a link about a week ago, but haven't got it handy.

[Mike B.]

Isn't it true that some of the only times inspectors found anything major was when there were Iraqi defectors who told them where things were hidden? This doesn't sound like cooperation.

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


any comparison between hitler and sadaam is completely wrong. while saddam might dream of being hitler, he has already shown it is all a pipe dream. the war with iran clearly demonstrates his total military incompetence.

Declaring war on the U.S. then attacking Russia wasn't exactly the most brilliant bit of strategy...

I do agree Saddam is much less of a threat to his neighbors than Hitler was. Iraq battled Iran to a stalemate; Germany brought most of Europe to its knees.

One parallel that might be relevant is that Germany began its aggression sooner than it had intended. If it had had time to implement some of its more interesting weapons, the war might have turned out far differently. If Saddam is given time to develop more advanced weapons, it will only be more difficult to bring him down, assuming we will inevitably have to confront him.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
LukeT: Not sure what you are referring to. I got my info from this timeline. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html)




I got my info from being there. :D

But here (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/navnews/nns95/nns95029.txt) is a link to the U.S. Navy News Service for 1995. Scroll down to where it says we won the Battenburg cup and summarizes what we did in 1994.

During 1994, Barry sailed more than 70,000 nautical miles,
completing a deployment that included the D-Day Commemoration off Normandy, Red Crown duties in the Adriatic Sea and a surge to the Persian Gulf when Saddam Hussein threatened Kuwait in the fall.
"We operated off Haiti for Operation Support Democracy, off
Bosnia for Sharp Guard with the U.N. during air strikes, and ended
up anchoring in Kuwait City harbor to help evacuate embassy
personnel during Operation Vigilant Warrior," said LCDR Terry
Mosher, combat systems officer. "It was an unbelievable cruise."

[flannery]

I don't know how much airtime the story got in the U.S. since I wasn't there. I do recall seeing an article in the magazine Newsweek after it was over.

I had wanted to get aboard an Aegis destroyer ever since I had read about them in Popular Science years before. We were a handpicked crew.

When I first laid eyes on the Barry, she was under construction in Mississippi. The first thing I said to the Commanding Officer was, "Someday, some tinpot dictator is going to think about invading another country, and then he is going to hear that we are on the way, and he will be shaking in his boots."

You can imagine my delight when this prediction came true.

[DanishDynamite]

Kodiak:I mentioned terms of surrender, also. Iraq was in violation of several of those terms during those years. Sorry, Kodiak, but I'm forced to use one of these: :rolleyes:

Here is what you said:
France and Germany think that more intense and focused inspections are the correct response to Iraq's 12 years of violating terms of surrender and multiple UN resolutions. So, by your logic, as long as one of the two statements ("violating terms of surrender", "[violating] multiple UN reolutions") is true, the whole sentence is true. OK, in that case, it is also true that the US has had a 100 year history of wiping out civilians with atomic bombs and arresting drunks.

BTW, could you enlighten me with regard to the violations of terms of surrender?

LukeT:I got my info from being there. :D Okay, you were sent to the Gulf in 1994. I did a little googling, and it turns out that Saddam massed troops along the border of Kuwait in 1994. How does this show that he wasn't cooperating with the UN inspectors?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

LukeT: Okay, you were sent to the Gulf in 1994. I did a little googling, and it turns out that Saddam massed troops along the border of Kuwait in 1994. How does this show that he wasn't cooperating with the UN inspectors?

First, let me correct a mistake I made. My wife logged onto the forum yesterday, and when I got on, I didn't notice that it defaulted to the last user, my wife, a.k.a. flannery. So my last post was posted in her name. I've done that so many times that most of flannery's posts are mine! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I guess, technically, you are correct DD. Hussein invading Kuwait again wouldn't have been a violation of the inspections. :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


any comparison between hitler and sadaam is completely wrong. while saddam might dream of being hitler, he has already shown it is all a pipe dream. the war with iran clearly demonstrates his total military incompetence.

Oh, yeah... Hitler was a brilliant strategist. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Kodiak:
So, by your logic, as long as one of the two statements ("violating terms of surrender", "[violating] multiple UN resolutions") is true, the whole sentence is true. OK, in that case, it is also true that the US has had a 100 year history of wiping out civilians with atomic bombs and arresting drunks.

Forgive me...Is this better? ;)

"France and Germany think that more intense and focused inspections are the correct response to Iraq's 12 years of violating either terms of surrender and/or multiple UN resolutions."

Funny that the terms of surrender also turn out to be a UN resolution themselves...

Though you are technically correct about my inaccurate sentence structure, I think you knew what I meant. I thought only Claus Larsen resorted to such tactics... ;)


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, could you enlighten me with regard to the violations of terms of surrender?

I'm gathering the info even now...

[demon]

"Oh, yeah... Hitler was a brilliant strategist. "

Poor old Adolph. Never did get round to reading that "The Art of War".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Kodiak:
BTW, could you enlighten me with regard to the violations of terms of surrender?


Gulf War Terms of Surrender (http://www.rantburg.com/gw1/safwan.htm)

From the website:
"The terms were those of UN Resolution 686, which had been passed Saturday night by a vote of 11-1, with three abstentions."


UN Resolution 686


Section 3 (a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;

Section 3 (d) Provide all information and assistance in identifying Iraqi mines, booby traps and other explosives as well as any chemical and biological weapons and material in Kuwait, in areas of Iraq where forces of Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to previous resolution are present temporarily, and in adjacent waters;

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by demon
"Oh, yeah... Hitler was a brilliant strategist. "

Poor old Adolph. Never did get round to reading that "The Art of War".

Lucky for us he didn't read the works of his countrymen...

"Infantry Attacks" - Rommel

"Achtung-Panzer" - Guderian

"On War" - Clausewitz

[demon]

Seriously Kodiak, what`s your take on Rommel?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by demon
Seriously Kodiak, what`s your take on Rommel?

His tactics, his military career, his involvement in the attack on Hitler, his suicide???

I'd love to reply, but you'll have to be a little more specific...