$98 per barrel oil

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
"news.verizon.net" wrote in
news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:

Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
US Military )

Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.

Probably because Germany has long been known for their good
photographic equipment and optics.

FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long
before you got there.

The occupation of Berlin ended in 1990. The troops stayed until 1994
and and all their costs were paid by the German tax payer until then.

Very different context (as I mentioned to John Godwin).

Just for kicks, what was to total cost of occuping Berlin compared to the
cost of defending all of Europe?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
Interesting. According to figure 3 the US started at 6% of GDP in 1980
and is down to 3.5 in 2002. West Germany started at 5.5 in 1984 and is
at about 3 in 2002. Approx 0.5 difference throughout.

Two things:

1. .5% of US GDP is a huge number. Now mulitiply that for 60 years.
I believe we've just paid for your welfare state.

2. West Germany was the "tip of the spear" in the Cold War. Despite
this exalted position, they STILL spent less than the US (as a
percentage) in their own defense.

Now go back and research the numbers on the rest of Europe.

And go back way before 1980, even back to the 1950's and 60's when US
military outlays were much higher as a % of GDP (as high as 10% during the
50's and early 60's) and Europe's was much less.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
I don't doubt the US military budget was huge during the cold war, but
so was ours. And so was the Soviet Union's BTW. I guess that's the
price you pay for wanting to be a super power. When you want to project
military power to all corners of the globe, have nuclear submarines and
air craft carriers roam the world oceans, have troops stand by for the
odd invasion here and there, it costs lots of money. The US didn't do
all that out of kindness, but for selfish reasons, namely to maintain
their superpower status. Don't portrait it as a gift please. The
benefit was mutual.

Really? What benefit did the US gain by saving/protecting Europe?
I'd be interested in hearing your take on this matter, because I see
very little return on our investment.

Not only was it expensive in dollars and lives lost in accidents, but
Europe, as many Europeans admit, lot the ability and nerve to defend itself.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?
What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
proudly is stunning.
You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square with
the group's Troll of Trolls,##



I beg your pardon.

I'm usenet's troll of trolls.


How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
governments?

I don't know any trolls who have done that.



The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
effort.

Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
bother?


You really don't know, do you?


I'm betting you never will.

What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Jay,

-- why did we
bother?


That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
You'll be amazed.


I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.

Matt

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in
:

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
"news.verizon.net" wrote in
news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:

Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
US Military )
Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.

Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
maintaining a military presence.

Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list could
go on.

Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
where all of the money came from.

The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in West
Berlin of the US, UK and France.

They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???

Matt

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote
in :


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote in
ups.com:

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

It comes from our national economies.

Which are based on...what?

Huh? Well the inventiveness, industriousness and investments of the
people who live and work here. What else would it come from?

Yes, in part...so what would you say is the effect of the welfare state
based on massive subsidies for slackers then when you can cut other corners,
such as defense spending. In other words, if I get free or highly subsidized
protection, I can spend my money on other things. Never mind the cost to the
who do provide the protection/subsidy.

Matt Whiting wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
@news1.epix.net:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
pay,
eh?
What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
proudly is stunning.
You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
with
the group's Troll of Trolls,##



I beg your pardon.

I'm usenet's troll of trolls.


How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
governments?

I don't know any trolls who have done that.



Now you do.


The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
effort.

Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
another
generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
bother?


You really don't know, do you?


I'm betting you never will.

What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.



Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.

Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.

What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are perceptions,
notions and a perspective that's considerably different from your's.


There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off from
the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
"prejidoose")








Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in news1p_i.782$2n4.24373
@news1.epix.net:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Jay,

-- why did we
bother?


That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
You'll be amazed.


I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.



You're right, there isn't.


So why bother looking around, eh?


Bertie

Matt Whiting wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
@news1.epix.net:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in
:

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...
"news.verizon.net" wrote in
news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:

Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
US Military )
Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied.
I
served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all
of
our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.

Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
maintaining a military presence.

Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list
could
go on.

Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
where all of the money came from.

The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in
West
Berlin of the US, UK and France.

They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???


Parsimonious fjukkwit.



Bertie