Support NeoGAF

[Dibbz]

OP has gotta take responsibility here imo. With a dumb title like that it is no surprise the dudebros came running in here shouting their mouths off.

I thought it was against the TOS to just read the title and post without reading the OP. Well clearly lots of people in here done that since majority of the posters do not even realize the article says it would have been a retaliation to any attack against Iran.

 

[nib95]

OP has gotta take responsibility here imo. With a dumb title like that it is no surprise the dudebros came running in here shouting their mouths off.

I thought it was against the TOS to just read the title and post without reading the OP. Well clearly lots of people in here done that since majority of the posters do not even realize the article says it would have been a retaliation to any attack against Iran.

If it's not against the TOS, it probably should be. It's like a master antagonistic troll. Usually with these sorts of sticky thread types I just post the article title as the thread title, provided it's not too aggravating in itself.

In this case it would be "Federal prosecutors determine due to possible Iran attack plans".

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Unfortunately most European leaders balk at the notion of U.S. withdraw from Europe, so the U.S. Gov't pours billions a year into European bases and deployment of U.S. troops for effectively zero strategic gains.

This has been proposed by U.S. politicians before and they always get shouted down by those with closer ties to European leaders as it allows a subsidized defense of Europe on U.S. tax payer dollars.

With the current state of U.S. naval superiority and the long range strike capabilities held by the U.S. there is really no reason at all to waste time with permanent foreign outposts. The U.S. military can guide rockets down ventilation shafts hundreds of miles away from the launch point yet we seriously need a standing military force in the middle of Europe and Japan?

Another issue is that bases will need to be built for hundreds(?) of thousands of personnel,
as well as all the logistical stuff that entails, there will be a huge short-term cost in moving soldiers out of Europe, Asia etc. Our current government plans to have the British armed forces out of Germany by 2020, and there's questions over where these soldiers will stay once they get back. (Of course, with the cuts there will probably be plenty of vacancies.)

 

[Joe]

"the pen devils set the stage for the war at home"

 

[Kinyou]

To be fair, Russia is theoretically the only major conventional threat to Europe, and their military capabilities are still a shadow of their former selves at best, and downright laughable at worst.

So what? All I said is that the German army wouldn't be prepared enough for a direct attack and all I got were some stupid responses.

 

[el retorno]

If it's not against the TOS, it probably should be. It's like a master antagonistic troll. Usually with these sorts of sticky thread types I just post the article title as the thread title, provided it's not too aggravating in itself.

In this case it would be "Federal prosecutors determine due to possible Iran attack plans".

So attacking foreign troops that are not attacking your country is a justified response? Thats a lot different than defending your nation. I see nothing wrong about the title.

Edit: for clarification Iran attacking US troops in germany is not self defense. Thoses troops would not be attacking Iran.

 

[poisonelf]

So attacking foreign troops that are not attacking your country is a justified response? Thats a lot different than defending your nation. I see nothing wrong about the title.

Edit: for clarification Iran attacking US troops in germany is not self defense. Thoses troops would not be attacking Iran.

You can't be serious... so if your country is attacked you are only "allowed" to defend by targeting the very specific army units acting at any given time. Military targets of the aggressor country are off limits as long as they are far away. But it's OK for said aggressor to demolish your country while being across the world. What?

 

[Misanthropy]

.

 

[Rektash]

The Bundeswehr has like 75,000 troops?

That's an army.

Looks like it is more than 200.000 actually.

Also, germany is the 7th biggest military spender worldwide. Iran is on place 25 here.

 

[jorma]

So attacking foreign troops that are not attacking your country is a justified response? Thats a lot different than defending your nation. I see nothing wrong about the title.

Edit: for clarification Iran attacking US troops in germany is not self defense. Thoses troops would not be attacking Iran.

Now you are just being silly.

 

[nib95]

So attacking foreign troops that are not attacking your country is a justified response? Thats a lot different than defending your nation. I see nothing wrong about the title.

Edit: for clarification Iran attacking US troops in germany is not self defense. Thoses troops would not be attacking Iran.

Is this a serious post? Guessing from your history on such matters it is?....


.....

 

[Particle Physicist]

Beaten like a redheaded step child.