Times change -- move U.S. bases

[Texan]

Peter A. Brown

Orlando Sentinel

Once the current crises with Iraq and North Korea are resolved, President Bush should reconsider, in the light of 21st-century geopolitics, the locations of U.S. bases abroad.

The Cold War's end and militant Islam's rise require a re-evaluation of the U.S. presence in Germany, South Korea and Saudi Arabia.

Although national security should remain paramount, a review of the annual $15 billion to $20 billion spent for U.S. installations in those countries is also a good idea.

Even looking past those nations' current disagreements with the United States, America's views and values are clearly moving in different directions from theirs.

It's not that U.S. bases aren't needed in Central Europe, Asia and the Middle East. They certainly are. U.S. interests dictate that our forces be positioned around the globe.

But Bush should consider moving at least some of them because of the new world order. Besides, common sense dictates that we base forces in nations that want them and back U.S. objectives abroad. Realignment to create more mobile force-deployment options might be prudent.

Especially in Eastern Europe and Asia, there would be nations eager to host U.S. bases, given their economic benefits and security umbrella. Bases are as valuable as factories and might bring the same kind of financial incentives.

This is not to understate the expense and hassle of moving massive military installations. But those costs need to be considered compared to the long-term benefits of relocating.

After all, if hosts no longer want the bases -- or if relations with those once-friendly nations have deteriorated enough that eventually an impasse will occur -- relocation makes sense. In each case, there are nearby nations that could provide a home for the U.S. bases.

There are 71,000 U.S. troops in Germany, a holdover from the Cold War when their job was to stop the Red Army from marching to Paris.

Not only does the Soviet Union no longer exist, but, in a dispute these days between its successor, Russia, and France or Germany, a surprising number of Americans might back the Russkies. U.S. interests are now probably more in sync with Moscow than Paris or Berlin, where the prime minister recently won re-election by campaigning against America.

And it's not as though the United States owes either country. We long ago paid off the French for their Revolutionary War help, twice rescuing them from Germany in the last century. America long ago wrote off billions of dollars in war-related debts owed by both nations.

Moreover, these days the main value of the European bases is their air proximity to the Middle East or Asia. Wanna bet that the Poles would pay lots of kielbasa for the economic opportunity of hosting big U.S. bases?

To some degree the same goes for the 38,000 American troops in South Korea. U.S. troops have been there since the Korean War ended in 1953 to protect the now booming, capitalistic South from the dirt-poor, communist North.

But even with the North Koreans restarting their nuclear-weapons program, many South Koreans, including their new president, seem to feel that America might be a larger threat to their well-being.

In that case, let's move some or all of our forces to Japan, Taiwan or any of the numerous other "Asian Tigers" where capitalism is blooming and bases might be more welcome, yet still close enough to Korea to do the job if necessary. Seoul and Washington have already agreed on a gradual reduction in U.S. forces, and further changes might be smart.

The Cold War's domino theory required U.S. bases in South Korea to stop the "red menace" from spreading. These days, there's no threat that North Korea's brand of communism would spread. Its tiny nuclear-weapons program is a weapon of terror but not of strategic clout. That's not to say the United States should condone aggression by the North, but, if the South Koreans aren't that worried, then why should Americans insist on a large military presence there?

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the Saudi royal family has asked for U.S. bases there to be moved once Saddam Hussein has been dispatched. Given the festering anti-Americanism among the Saudi people, Bush should comply. But the Saudis, who would be receiving a big favor, should pay handily for the infrastructure investments, such as U.S. airstrips, left behind.

Once Iraq is de-Saddamized, U.S. forces will remain there, as they did in Germany after World War II. Why not move the U.S. bases now in Saudi Arabia to Iraq? In the long run, the Iraqis would be more hospitable and geographically valuable hosts.

A review of strategy and locations for U.S. forces overseas is already under way as part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's effort to move the Pentagon into the 21st century. Once the disputes with Iraq and North Korea are resolved, consideration of where we put U.S. troops overseas should take center stage.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by Texan
Once the disputes with Iraq and North Korea are resolved

How can this journo hack justify trivializing a major international conflict (when it begins) with the above phrase?

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Also, after re-reading that article a couple of more times, it's anti-European sentiment is quite clear. And, "the rise of militant islam"... wtf?

Let's not forget who trained the terrorists in the first place.

Also, while I'm on about Iraq...who's fault is that, after the 1992 Gulf War, Saddam is still in power.


ding ding ding... The yanks.

[Cochese]

Russia > France

[Scoot951]

I agree with the part about Germany, the cost of moving's really the only reason to stay there. But I disagree with moving out of the Koreas, and basing our troops in Iraq will make us look like conquerors rather than liberators (or whatever we're supposed to be).

[Nodrog]

http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...896573,00.html

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Nodrog
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...896573,00.html

Right move, wrong reasons. :-/

[deerbarn]

Id really love this to shake the Eu up enough to turn around and slap a trade embargo on the US or something.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by deerbarn
Id really love this to shake the Eu up enough to turn around and slap a trade embargo on the US or something.

Wouldnt that be a rather hypocritical move for a body that claims to promote "free trade" to take?

[deerbarn]

Possibly, however it would also make me giggle

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Wrong move, totally wrong reasons.

America's attitude towards the rest of the world is growing in Jingoism. They want to make an example of germany for "Standing up to them" . Does that mean that anyone that dares to appose America in future will be crippled?

Like the article said, there's no stratgetic reason to basing troops in Germany any more. The odds of them being invaded in the next century seem just about null. Why shouldn't we move them to a nation that is more likely to be threatened? (And could probably use the cash besides)

[Scoot951]

The other article. And like I said, moving out of Germany is a good move, we just shouldn't be rubbing the German's noses in it.

[Judge]

Originally posted by deerbarn
Possibly, however it would also make me giggle

Excellent, I am sure the US will give every consideration to foriegn policy based on your giggle factor.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Scoot951
The other article. And like I said, moving out of Germany is a good move, we just shouldn't be rubbing the German's noses in it.

Perhaps the German economy should not be so dependant on the income generated from the US presence?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texan
In that case, let's move some or all of our forces to Japan, Taiwan or any of the numerous other "Asian Tigers" where capitalism is blooming and bases might be more welcome,

Bases in Japan welcome?

Given the unfortunate propensity of US soldiers stationed in Japan to rape underage Japanese schoolgirls (17 cases in the last 5 years), public sentiment in Japan, and in particular in Okinawa is to get rid of the US bases as quickly as possible.

[Terra Australis]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Bases in Japan welcome?

Given the unfortunate propensity of US soldiers stationed in Japan to rape underage Japanese schoolgirls (17 cases in the last 5 years), public sentiment in Japan, and in particular in Okinawa is to get rid of the US bases as quickly as possible.

Enough U.S bases exist in Japan, as it is.

But as for what was said about having bases in Europe and moving them further towards Asia etc, I.E in Poland.

There is now a base in Afghanistan that was rebuilt, and also Pakistan leased bases in the conflict to oust the Taliban, who's to say that there is not a more permanent base set up in Pakistan, or that these two come to a more permanent arrangement.

As for Afghanistan, the U.S rebuilt the former Russian airbase, and now there would be other presence in Afghanistan, so the country would slowly be rebuilding, and would be benefittting from the U.S presence established there.

The flow on would be that other nations would be putting money into other infrastructure projects, also the U.N included.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Does that mean that anyone that dares to appose America in future will be crippled?

Rhetoric aside, I hardly think any country's going to be crippled by losing a few military bases.

Beyond that, I fully support the right of any country to disagree with US policy--but it would be exceedingly foolish of them to expect us to pay for the privilege.

[W]

Am I the only one to notice that what is refered to as potentially cripling to german economy was a complete US withdrawal, not just a military one, but buisness side too, every US investment.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by W
Am I the only one to notice that what is refered to as potentially cripling to german economy was a complete US withdrawal, not just a military one, but buisness side too, every US investment.

Pulling US military bases out of Germany is certainly doable, although as a practical matter it would probably take years to complete. Cancelling all defense related "arrangements" might be doable, but certainly that would require scrapping NATO or else one or both countries leaving NATO. It doesn't make any sense to dismantle NATO to hurt Germany if (part of) the reason we're mad at Germany is we think they're not supporting NATO. Cancelling all commerical contracts is just fantasy--even if it could be done it would hurt the US as much as Germany.

[wu_trax]

that whole thing was already planed for a while, it just gains some more support in the last weeks/month. there is simply no need for all these troops any more.
a stop of all economical relations would most likely harm the us as much as it would harm us. one of the reasons there is not full scale tradewar going on between the us and the eu yet. there are quite a few trade conflicts going on between the whole eu and the us, nothing happened yet and i dont think anyone will want to let the situation escalade even further.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Bases in Japan welcome?

Given the unfortunate propensity of US soldiers stationed in Japan to rape underage Japanese schoolgirls (17 cases in the last 5 years), public sentiment in Japan, and in particular in Okinawa is to get rid of the US bases as quickly as possible.

U.S. service members should be and are held to higher standards than the rest of the populace. U.S. service members who commit crimes go to prison. Here's an interesting story about the Japanese.

Thousands of women are smuggled into Japan every year. They arrive with promises of good paying jobs in hotels, restaurants, etc. The reality is to find a life of sexual slavery awaits them.
The trade in women is controlled by the yakuza crime syndicate. These women are forced to work as prostitutes against their own free will and recieve no payment.
The yakuza rely on the terror of the concentration camp, verbal threats, beatings and rape. Japan is one of the regions top destinations for women forced into sexual slavery.
Human Rights activists estimate the trade is worth Yen4 trillion ($400 million) a year. It is estimated more then 75,000 women are working as prostitution slaves in Japan.
The trade accounts for 1% of Japan's GNP, as big as its annual defence budget. Little wonder the Japanese government does not care about these women. It appears it considers the dollar more important.
Somtimes the women escape these prostition death camps but the retribution is swift and brutal. Usually it is targetted at both the women and their families. Traffickers gunned down a Thai man who was waiting at Bangkok airport to meet his daughter who had fled her captors.

[W]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Pulling US military bases out of Germany is certainly doable, although as a practical matter it would probably take years to complete. Cancelling all defense related "arrangements" might be doable, but certainly that would require scrapping NATO or else one or both countries leaving NATO. It doesn't make any sense to dismantle NATO to hurt Germany if (part of) the reason we're mad at Germany is we think they're not supporting NATO. Cancelling all commerical contracts is just fantasy--even if it could be done it would hurt the US as much as Germany.

Agreed. But that's what the article says. Not that removing the american troops in germany would cripple them.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
that whole thing was already planed for a while, it just gains some more support in the last weeks/month. there is simply no need for all these troops any more.
a stop of all economical relations would most likely harm the us as much as it would harm us. one of the reasons there is not full scale tradewar going on between the us and the eu yet. there are quite a few trade conflicts going on between the whole eu and the us, nothing happened yet and i dont think anyone will want to let the situation escalade even further.

Pulling U.S. troops out of Germany will not affect the overall economy very much. It will affect some local economies. I'm sure the Germans will survive. What the United States needs to do is relocate V Corps, and its brigades, 3rd Corps Support Command, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division and the units that support the existence of those combat troops. The lands and building those units use can be converted into industrial parks and low-cost housing. It has been done before.

The article that Nod posted was going a lot further than what I posted originally. Moving combat forces out of Germany only makes sense. Hitting the German economy because of Schroeder's anti-American rhetoric would be a bad idea.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Texan
U.S. service members should be and are held to higher standards than the rest of the populace. U.S. service members who commit crimes go to prison. Here's an interesting story about the Japanese.

/insert emotional drivel/

What the hell did that have to do with anything at all? It might just as well be an interesting story about the americans, appoximately 50.000 women are smuggled into the USA as sex slaves yearly.

It is a growing global problam, not something you can pin on the japanese as a excuse for the behaviour of american troops in their country.

"Well, the japanese are perverts anyway, so who are they to be complaining about our troops raping their kids."

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Pulling U.S. troops out of Germany will not affect the overall economy very much. It will affect some local economies. I'm sure the Germans will survive. What the United States needs to do is relocate V Corps, and its brigades, 3rd Corps Support Command, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division and the units that support the existence of those combat troops. The lands and building those units use can be converted into industrial parks and low-cost housing. It has been done before.

The article that Nod posted was going a lot further than what I posted originally. Moving combat forces out of Germany only makes sense. Hitting the German economy because of Schroeder's anti-American rhetoric would be a bad idea.

Powell made some VERY moderate statements today, so i doubt anything at all will happen because of this. if any troops are removed this will happen because of a long term strategy (and thats perfectly fine with me, because, to be honset, i dont see any need for us-troops in this country any more.)
PS an schröder isnt anti-american, he is just anti-war. (until now ...)

[Texan]

Originally posted by Emperorn
What the hell did that have to do with anything at all? It might just as well be an interesting story about the americans, appoximately 50.000 women are smuggled into the USA as sex slaves yearly.

It is a growing global problam, not something you can pin on the japanese as a excuse for the behaviour of american troops in their country.

"Well, the japanese are perverts anyway, so who are they to be complaining about our troops raping their kids."

I was looking for information that showed Japanese men are more likely to rape Japanese women in Japan than U.S. troops. I read it somewhere about a half a year ago, but could not find it on the Internet. So I just tossed that in.

If 1 out of 10,000 U.S. service members rapes a Japanese woman and 12 out of 10,000 Japanese men rape a Japanese woman, who is worse. One gets a lot of media attention and the other does not.

This fact I know. U.S. service members are less likely to commit violent crimes than the Japanese people in Guam. That is per capita. I don't have a cite. Sorry.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
snip
PS an schröder isnt anti-american, he is just anti-war. (until now ...)

Schröder has offered a lot of support to the United States; however, the anti-war platform he ran on played on the anti-American sentiments of much of Germany.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by deerbarn
Id really love this to shake the Eu up enough to turn around and slap a trade embargo on the US or something.

1. Trade embargo.
2. Removal of all US bases in EU territory.
3. Piss off and run your 'Star Wars' system from your own country.

A little reminder that we're not puppets.

Oh, I forgot, we are

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
1. Trade embargo.
2. Removal of all US bases in EU territory.
3. Piss off and run your 'Star Wars' system from your own country.

A little reminder that we're not puppets.

Oh, I forgot, we are

No trade embargo is planned.

As far as I know the United States has no plan to remove the bases in Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Stuttgart, Germany, Garmisch, Germany or Geilenkirchen, Germany. Let's not call it EU.

I have no idea what you mean by Star Wars system.

[inf]

Can we have a custom war/iraq forums please.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
No trade embargo is planned.

I know, I was suggesting it as a reasonabel move in light of your current regime.

As far as I know the United States has no plan to remove the bases in Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Stuttgart, Germany, Garmisch, Germany or Geilenkirchen, Germany. Let's not call it EU.

I wasn't suggesting you had plans to do it, I was suggesting we TELL you to do it. We neither need nor want your military in our countries.

I have no idea what you mean by Star Wars system.

Google for Fylingdales. You can also take the kit at Menwith Hill with you on your way out.

Now read the last 2 lines of my first post.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Texan

If 1 out of 10,000 U.S. service members rapes a Japanese woman and 12 out of 10,000 Japanese men rape a Japanese woman, who is worse. One gets a lot of media attention and the other does not.

This fact I know. U.S. service members are less likely to commit violent crimes than the Japanese people in Guam. That is per capita. I don't have a cite. Sorry.

Americans murdered 25.000 fellow americans 2002, muslim fundamentalists murdered 3000 americans, who is worse. One gets a lot of media attention and the other does not.

Of course the crimes commited by the US troops get more attention. So what if they are less likely to commit a crime than the average japanese, every one they they do commit is still an unnecessary additon to total crime in Japan.

They are commited by an outside perpetrator and thus are easier to isolate and deal with (kicking out all foreign troops would eliminate the problem alltogether). Changing your own society is harder. Though i understand that the Japanese have quite low crime rates as it is.

[Archi]

I have heard that the Pentagon is going to use a new game plan for the new century. It is called "Operation Warm Lilypad". What it entails is the breakup of these huge troop concentrations in Europe. The troops will then be scattered in smaller quicker response units in more countries. Poland was a big name that was dropped a lot. I do not like the thought of US troops in a country where the government does not consent to their presence. It is true that the US were once welcomed in Germany with open arms as their saviors (so my German aunt told me anyways). However times change and the Soviet menace is no more. I am for pulling these troops out, but to try an economic war with Germany is a bad idea and has the sound of sour grapes to it.

[Sub]

Originally posted by Texan
If 1 out of 10,000 U.S. service members rapes a Japanese woman and 12 out of 10,000 Japanese men rape a Japanese woman, who is worse. One gets a lot of media attention and the other does not.

So you think that Japanese people think differently to Americans, and have different morals?

[Sub]

I find all this 'old-europe' business quite amusing.

"We don't need the 3rd and 4th biggest economies in the world, we have Estonia and Latvia!"

Yeah good luck with that.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Sub
So you think that Japanese people think differently to Americans, and have different morals?

I think it should be mentioned that the rape rate is 20 times lower in Japan than in the USA.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
I know, I was suggesting it as a reasonabel move in light of your current regime.

I wasn't suggesting you had plans to do it, I was suggesting we TELL you to do it. We neither need nor want your military in our countries.
[/b]

The places I mentioned (except Italy) support NATO operations. The United States cannot leave those places without quitting the NATO alliance. Is that what you want?

U.S. troops in Italy must remain to react to emergencies in Africa.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Americans murdered 25.000 fellow americans 2002, muslim fundamentalists murdered 3000 americans, who is worse. One gets a lot of media attention and the other does not.

Of course the crimes commited by the US troops get more attention. So what if they are less likely to commit a crime than the average japanese, every one they they do commit is still an unnecessary additon to total crime in Japan.

They are commited by an outside perpetrator and thus are easier to isolate and deal with (kicking out all foreign troops would eliminate the problem alltogether). Changing your own society is harder. Though i understand that the Japanese have quite low crime rates as it is.

I agree with you. U.S. service members have a very low crime rate compared to the United States as a whole.

[Gayle29uk]

[quote]Originally posted by Texan
[b]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
The places I mentioned (except Italy) support NATO operations. The United States cannot leave those places without quitting the NATO alliance. Is that what you want?

Bollocks, you can be a member of NATO and still base your troops in your own country.

U.S. troops in Italy must remain to react to emergencies in Africa.

Let us deal with Africa as our next door neighbour, you piss off and worry about your own neighbours.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Sub
So you think that Japanese people think differently to Americans, and have different morals?

I was not talking about American people. I was talking about American people who serve in the military. There is a difference.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Emperorn
I think it should be mentioned that the rape rate is 20 times lower in Japan than in the USA.

That is not a true number. That is based on a study from a professor who claimed women were raped when they said they were not raped, but had engaged in sex when they had drank a lot of alcohol or took drugs.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
[b]Bollocks, you can be a member of NATO and still base your troops in your own country.

Let us deal with Africa as our next door neighbour, you piss off and worry about your own neighbours.

Europe has proven in the past that it cannot deal with its own neighbors. Look at the genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda. Millions of people have died because Europe does not have the political or military capability to deal with its neighbors.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
That is not a true number. That is based on a study from a professor who claimed women were raped when they said they were not raped, but had engaged in sex when they had drank a lot of alcohol or took drugs.

"3. Rape
In 1998, U.S. had the highest crime rate of rape (gang rape) cases among the 17 countries, which was 34.20 for per 100,000 persons. England and Wales had the second highest crime rate of rape cases, which was 14.69 for per 100,000 persons. France had the third highest rate of such cases, which was 13.38 for per 100,000 persons. The crime rate of rape cases in Taiwan was the seventh highest (8.82 for per 100,000 persons). The rate was lower than U.S., England & Wales, France, Chile, the Netherlands, and Germany but higher than South Korea (4.38 for per 100,000 persons), Spain (3.23 for per 100,000 persons) and Japan (1.48 for per 100,000 persons).
In terms of rate of solving rape cases, Taiwan had the highest solving rate, which was 92.05%. South Korea had a solving rate of 90.92%. Japan had a solving rate of 88.2%. France had a solving rate of 85.20% and U.S. had a lowest solving rate, which was 49.90%."
there you go.
( http://www.moi.gov.tw/W3/stat/englis...89criminal.htm )

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Europe has proven in the past that it cannot deal with its own neighbors. Look at the genocides in the Balkans and Rwanda. Millions of people have died because Europe does not have the political or military capability to deal with its neighbors.

as long as your troops are here no politician here sees any need to change that situation.
as i already said: i dont see any need for us troops in europe, or even for the whole nato. there is no extrenal thread any more. even if you have the largest and best equipted army in the world, it wont help you to stop terrorism.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
"3. Rape
In 1998, U.S. had the highest crime rate of rape (gang rape) cases among the 17 countries, which was 34.20 for per 100,000 persons. England and Wales had the second highest crime rate of rape cases, which was 14.69 for per 100,000 persons. France had the third highest rate of such cases, which was 13.38 for per 100,000 persons. The crime rate of rape cases in Taiwan was the seventh highest (8.82 for per 100,000 persons). The rate was lower than U.S., England & Wales, France, Chile, the Netherlands, and Germany but higher than South Korea (4.38 for per 100,000 persons), Spain (3.23 for per 100,000 persons) and Japan (1.48 for per 100,000 persons).
In terms of rate of solving rape cases, Taiwan had the highest solving rate, which was 92.05%. South Korea had a solving rate of 90.92%. Japan had a solving rate of 88.2%. France had a solving rate of 85.20% and U.S. had a lowest solving rate, which was 49.90%."
there you go.
( http://www.moi.gov.tw/W3/stat/englis...89criminal.htm )

I don't believe these numbers. Researchers in the United States count people who say they have not been raped.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
as long as your troops are here no politician here sees any need to change that situation.
as i already said: i dont see any need for us troops in europe, or even for the whole nato. there is no extrenal thread any more. even if you have the largest and best equipted army in the world, it wont help you to stop terrorism.

Are you saying that you don't see any reason to have NATO troops in Europe?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Are you saying that you don't see any reason to have NATO troops in Europe?

yes

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
I agree with you. U.S. service members have a very low crime rate compared to the United States as a whole.

I can't find totally accurate figures for everything but...

In 1996 2437 personnel were in military prisons.

1999 estimates of total US military size were 1.5 million, I can't find a 96 figure so I'll use this one as a guide.

Therefore 0.16% of the total military was in jail. Note that 202 of these were for military offences so feel free to disregard those if you wish. I would also add that 16% of these were in jail for rape and 11% for murder.


On the other hand, there were 2639700 non military people in prison/local jail in the same year, with a total US adult population (lets keep it fair) of 197713000 that gives us a percentage of 1.33% (4.2% of those were for murder, 1.5% of those were for rape), almost 10 times the military percentage so your facts are looking good so far.

However, 399 convicted military rapists that year out of a group comprising 1500000 members gives us a figure of 0.026%.

38600 non-military rapists out of a population of 197713000 gives us a percentage of 0.019%.

Chance of a random US military person being a rapist: 0.026%
Chance of a random US adult citizen being a rapist: 0.019%
So the chances of a military person being a rapist are 36.8% higher than a non-military person.

If you like I can do this with murder too, figures will always bite you in the ass if you bull****

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
I don't believe these numbers. Researchers in the United States count people who say they have not been raped.

You better believe MY numbers, they came from the US Department of Justice!

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I don't believe these numbers. Researchers in the United States count people who say they have not been raped.

they seem to be true though:
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t3113.pdf