1st armored isn't going back to Germany.

[aerocontrols]

Good. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/03/wirq203.xml)

[003998]

Funny.
I didn't recognize any rock here. Where is that biased media thread again ?

But I agree, nice to have them out.

[Kopji]

oh NO!!! All those American troops will need to learn new languages and customs now. This will incur a huge military retraining and educational cost.

(yeah, just joking)

[Jon_in_london]

Ho Ho Ho

[Baker]

The 1st Armored Division is my old unit in Germany Chancellor Schroder doesn’t seem to like the idea what a shame.
Now AUP will have to look else where for the US’s Imperialism.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Good. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/03/wirq203.xml)

You mean "Good" as in "let the Germans suffer retaliation, they deserved it" or "good" as in "finally our troops can see some new countries in "Eastern Europe" or what?

Zee

[Khalid01]

Supposedly the economic repercussions are rather coarse, but I don't think it'll be a terrible loss when it comes to defense for Germany.

I'd like it more if they disbanded the 1st armoured, rather than just remove it. It's been a waste for over the past 10 years.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


You mean "Good" as in "let the Germans suffer retaliation, they deserved it" or "good" as in "finally our troops can see some new countries in "Eastern Europe" or what?

Zee

Neither.

Good because we're not really wanted or needed in Germany, because troops in Eastern Europe (and other places) will be closer to where we are likely to want to use them, good because Germany is a pacifist nation, and we are likely to disagree more in the future, good because we should be estabilishing better relations with countries that are, in the future, more likely to support us.

etc...

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
The 1st Armored Division is my old unit in Germany Chancellor Schroder doesn’t seem to like the idea what a shame.
Now AUP will have to look else where for the US’s Imperialism.

East of there, I think the article says.

[Mike B.]

What kind of impearial power leaves a country because it is asked to (i.e. Phillipines) or tolerates the election of a government opposed to it (i.e. Schroeder) in a country it is supposedly occuping?

My guess is that either AUP does not understand the concept of impearilism or is defining it in a rather broad way.

[Mike B.]

Hey on a related note in another thread one can see the fact that Australians are eating more is evidence too of imperilism by the USA according to AUP...

This time the dreaded CULTURAL kind...

[GrapeJ713]

Why doesn't the 1st armored just go back to America or get disbanded and have all the troops and tanks dispersed to units in America. I wish the USA would greatly decrease it's foriegn presence. I could see why we would want small units stationed in NATO countries to do cross training and to coordinate plans if one of our allies are attacked. The EU can protect Germany, the reason American troops were there in the first place died over a decade ago. I'm not sure about Korea and Japan just yet. I guess we are going to have to kick N. Korea's ass if they don't implode like the USSR. Or become a lot more open to the west and have free market reforms like Vietnam.
I was stationed in the Phillipines for about 8 months, just before the USA pulled out. Most of the people didn't want us to leave but the government did. Too bad a volcano destroyed most of what we left behind shortly before we got out.