Yea, but it does need to come from a German source, IMO. Otherwise, it is just hearsay. Besides, you can probably find somebody to agree with just about anything esp given the Internet's reach. My father works for a German company and has worked side-by-side with Germans for the last dozen years...many of which are now close friends. As a result, our family often talks about Germany. Never has their been any talk of America's "occupation" of Germany. Furthermore, I don't recall hearing about the American "occupation" in the news or other outlets. So while I'm sure you can find a handfull of people that view it as an "occupation," they would be a severe minority, IMO. Is it a single opinion? ...or is it a widely held belief by many/most Germans? I don't get the sense most Germans spend much time worrying about it. Therefore, to base a single person's opinion as proof that Germans still are occupied is misleading, IMO.
I'd be thrilled with that! My only point on the source is that it's the word of one wacky guy on a wacky website that has things no one else would agree with. Now, if you're just trying to say that some German believes they are still occupied, that's one thing. But I don't think that article shows that any decent number of people believe such a thing.
I don't think glynch would be thrilled with that! I don't think its out of the blue to suggest that there have been Okinawans that have protested being 'occupied' still, that's been in the news several times over the last few years. I dare say there are a Germans who feel the same way. There are DEFINITELY US and British tanks still in Germany and still rolling down German streets. My point is that while there are factually objectionable things written not only on that site but in the article itself, I did not post those for that reason. The two points I did post are neither unrealistic nor wacky conspiracies. As such the first point is relevant to whether there is still a perception of occupation. That claim doesn't necessitate a Pew poll. The second point is a factual claim - I merely included it because it was so funny that it was an exact response to krosfyah. I need no substantiation to say there are still Allied tanks in Germany unless you'd be so silly as to claim there aren't. What is an 'overly' fine distinction? Someone when writing about an exit strategy for Iraq brought up WWII. I countered that we're still IN those countries. FB made the finer distinction that people would still consider that an exit. While nonsensical on its face I rolled with it and merely pointed out that continued bases would not be considered an 'exit' by the antiwar crowd. Its most convenient for you to brush off an point you don't agree with as 'semantics' or as a 'technicality' or as an 'overly fine distinction' - whatever that is. The FUNNY part is that I am CORRECTING a comparison of WWII to Iraq not comparing WWII to Iraq. Just goes to show yet ANOTHER Glynch knee jerk response, lol. Ok, no offense but that you didn't have a dinner discussion about it doesn't mean its not an issue. I never said it was an opinion widely held. In fact, as I pointed out, my contention was about 'exit,' not occupation. But that SOME Germans feel this way, that our presence there is in FACT an extension of our occupation - as bases in Iraq would be, lends credence to the claim that the anti-war crowd would NOT call that an 'exit' but a continuation of our occupation. My only point was the sentiment that we should have an exit strategy like in WWII was not what claimed. Our 'exit strategy' in WWII was a LONG occupation followed by forward deployed bases in Germany in Japan that ARE STILL THERE. Even after the demise of the Soviet Union, lol. THAT 'exit strategy' sounds more like what the anti-war crowd has been calling a conspiracy to continue occupying Iraq for crying out loud. If that is what happens they're not going to all the sudden say 'oh yeah, that's cool.' Nor are they going to say 'well the government of Iraq says its ok.' They're going to say 'the puppet regime the US installed has done what they were told to do and allowed us to establish bases there so they can (fill in the blank - control the oil, oppress the people etc).
If it isnt' a widely held opinion, then it isn't really worth discussing...now is it? What's the difference again? Seriously. How are you making the distinction? SOME German's also still feel they are a superior race. Does that make it a worthy conversation and getting all worked up about? Ok. An extension of...but only on a technicality. It is NO LONGER an occupation by any reasonable definition. We have military bases all over the world. Does that mean we are occupying the entire world? And this is your whole point. I can't disagree. Just as I can't disagree that you can find German's who feel they are superior or who feel they are being occupied. But those people aren't mainstream. There will always be people that beleive whatever for no rational reason. Lets focus on the mainstream, please. After most troops pullout and we aren't running tanks through Bagdad, MOST Americans will be satisfied with that result...even if we leave some bases behind. They are still there because of the threat from Russia (that still exists today) and China. I've heard fairly regularly in the news that many experts feel Russia is as much a threat now than ever because of aging and rogue nuclear weapons. We ain't closing the German base anytime soon. Put that in the bank. Who cares if a few extremists drivil up a conspiracy. Mainstream America will be happy if we withdrawal 90% of our troops and quit running troops/tanks down city streets. I think we've talked in circles enough on this topic. I'll check back to see if you have a new angle.
I guess I could have saved you the trouble of running in circles by pointing out that your original response was a non sequitur. But I thought I'd indulge you since you seemed to think it was relevant and because there's nothing worse than a rolleyes at the back end of an irrelevant point. Well....yes. If we're talking about whether or not it is still considered an occupation it might be relevant to know if anyone thinks that its still an occupation. How am I making the distinction between what 'exit' means as opposed to not 'exit?' Well, if you're in a room today, and you're there 60 years from now without leaving, you haven't 'exited' the room. That, of course, is only tangentially related at best to your rolleyes about occupation. First let me point out again that this has nothing to do with my original post which merely said that when referencing our 'exit' from WWII occupation one should acknowledge that we hadn't 'exited' from those countries. Second, your answer shows no comprehension of context. If we have bases in England could anyone argue that we are occupying England? No, because we never occupied England. If we've continuously had troops and bases in Germany and Japan since the end of WWII, 60 years straight, could someone feel they were still occupied by outside forces? Yes, I think they could. Transpose that idea into our current situation in Iraq. If we remove the majority of our forces and yet build bases, and maintain a large troop presence in Iraq, will some people say we are still occupying Iraq? Undoubtably. Will that include Iraqis? Undoubtably. Will it include people in the 'anti-war crowd?' Again, undoubtably. They are ALREADY arguing that is what's going to happen and we haven't executed and 'exit strategy' yet. If our 'exit strategy' is like that of WWII, where we follow occupation with permanent bases, they won't think that's an exit either. OK, a lot of Iraqis think, apparently, that we are there to take over Iraq and their oil. I don't think that's true. Yet that is the reality we have to deal with. That I don't think its rational does not mean it is not true. If you want to say ignore anyone that is not rational, I just have to point out that Osama irrationally blew the crap out of two big buildings in NYC and killed three thousand people. Does that mean its a figment of my imagination? Well....no. Again this is irrelevant to my original post which merely pointed out that if one were to relate what happened post-WWII occupation, it wasn't an 'exit.' We still have troops there. If that happens in Iraq you cannot reasonably say that Iraqis and the Islamic world will feel that is anything but a continuing occupation, not an exit. How our forward deployment is justified is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The FACT is that they are still there, hence they have not left. Troops in Germany can't do anything about aging and rogue nuclear weapons, so that argument makes no sense. What an examination of the literature WILL tell you is that NATO (under the auspices of which our troops are still stationed in Europe) is trying to FIND a new mission to orient around now that there is NO threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Not, again, that any of this is relevant to our discussion, but just fyi. Hey, I'm not trying to claim glynch is the mainstream so we're in agreement there. But if you'll take a gander at the TOPIC of the thread then you'd need to relate it to the anti-war crowd. That crowd, at least as represented on this bbs already contends the war was for oil and for future bases in Iraq. So my responses are framed in that context.
Okay, I will concede the point that SOME people will still call it an occupation if we leave some bases behind. But MOST American's will be content with the result. So frankly, MOST American's could care less if a handfull of anti-war people still complain about occupation at that point. So if you are worried about what SOME people will say even after a 90% withdrawal, then I say you worry too much. Regarding the occupation of Germany, we are fighting a semantics game. I've conceded the technicality that we still have troops in Germany since WWII. My point is that functionally, it isn't an occupation. For all practical purposes, we have exited. I'm sure you can find somebody out there that still calls it an occupation but that doesn't make it so. Your example that we need to pay attentioned to EVERYBODY with the Osama example was weak. Osama was an identified and targeted enemy of America. But if 10 shmo's in Germany call our bases part of an 'occupation,' my point is that it is hardly relevant. The VAST majority of people don't recognize Germany as an occupied country. And when we do a 90% pullout in Iraq, the VAST majority of Americans will also see that as our final 'exit.' If there are a few people in the anti-war crowd that still call it an occupation after a 90% pullout, well frankly, I don't really care. You can never please all the people all the time. If we can just stop spending $1 billion dollars a day over there (or whatever), then I'll be happy. For the record, I am in the anti-war crowd. I opposed the war before it began and I still oppose it now. But I also feel, at this point, a premature pullout would be problematic so maybe I'm not a staunch anto-war guy.
