US troops in Europe

November 23rd, 2004  

Topic: US troops in Europe

I really don't think US still need to station troops in Europe.
I think it is a waste of money for US.

Europe (EU) can defend herself without any problem, btw there is NO threat towards Europe at all. Russia is NO more enemy of West Europe.

So question:
1. Should US pull out all its troops from Europe?

2. If not, why should US deploy troops in current Europe?

November 24th, 2004  
I'm all for it. Bringing our boys home is a better idea then leaving them in Europe where the threat is non-existant. While it might not have a profound economic impact on Europe when they leave, it will have a positive impact on local economies here at home when they do come back. They can spend their US dollars here in the US instead of in Europe.
November 24th, 2004  
We should probably keep them in Europe, Mostly for safty and defense reasons plus it gives us a stance in another part of the world.
November 24th, 2004  
plus it gives us a stance in another part of the world.
thats exactly why they are still there IMO.America (or any other country)will do that if they are to maintain their superpower status, presence in every part of the world.
November 24th, 2004  
Pfft, yank them out, just helping a bunch of euro pacifist with business.

Although we do use that as a "launch" zone. Not to mention the medical care there, lots of the wounded fellers go to Germany after fightin' in the sands.
November 24th, 2004  
Pfft, yank them out, just helping a bunch of euro pacifist with business
watch it blitzer,u really dont know how capable are we in solving military bussines,so please dont even try think that US is our "nanny",they are here only beacouse those countries need money,so they gave their basses on rent
November 24th, 2004  
The USA's strong presence in Europe used to have a good purpose. That purpose isn't really there anymore, but we remain committed to NATO and our other alliances. A token presence may be required to show our commitment, but heavy deployment is pointless for the time being. As far as I know, it is also nonexistent already.
November 24th, 2004  
I believe the way to go is by reducing the amount of US personell in Europe but maintaining bases and storage facilities in case of changed politics in the east.

USA as the strongest NATO member should be commited to Europe as long as the NATO organization is alive. However, on the other hand, if the political climate and the European Union planned battle groups can fill the gap of US soldiers then I do not see any reason for the US to be deployed.
November 24th, 2004  
why are they there? do troops stationed in europe recieve training they would not have otherwise have gotten back in the USA?
they are probably there in case a situation invovling americans occurs anywhere. by having thier troops stationed globally, it decreases the ammount of time taken for them to reach the incident scene. this is probably a good thing, although i know a lot of people object to troops beings stationed on foreign soil as they see them as an unwanted/unneccessary pressence
November 24th, 2004  
EU dont need US troops in Europe, because its no cold war threat and EU can handel it sefl