Times change -- move U.S. bases

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
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****

Numbers always bite you in the ass when you don't look at all the variables. Service members are more likely to go to jail for rape than are civilians. That skews the numbers. U.S. service members can be executed for rape. I believe your numbers are not accurate.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Iniluki
I'll think you'll find it was Tony Blair who pushed for the war in the balkans without a UN resolution.

We do try you know.

Try is not do. Millions died in the Balkans while Europe "tried" to deal with the situation.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
Numbers always bite you in the ass when you don't look at all the variables. Service members are more likely to go to jail for rape than are civilians. That skews the numbers. U.S. service members can be executed for rape. I believe your numbers are not accurate.

The US military currently has 7 people on death row in Leavenworth, all for murder. On top of that, US military law only allows a death penalty sentence to be applied in if the crime is committed in time of war. No confusing the issue please, I didn't do nearly an hours research of US government sites before posting for nothing

As for them being more likely to go to prison for rape, prove it. I could also argue that plea bargaining (even more prevalent in the US military then outside) skews the figures even more and that the military figure should in fact be higher. I'd stick with the raw data if I were you analysing it only makes your position worse.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
The US military currently has 7 people on death row in Leavenworth, all for murder. On top of that, US military law only allows a death penalty sentence to be applied in if the crime is committed in time of war. No confusing the issue please, I didn't do nearly an hours research of US government sites before posting for nothing

As for them being more likely to go to prison for rape, prove it. I could also argue that plea bargaining (even more prevalent in the US military then outside) skews the figures even more and that the military figure should in fact be higher. I'd stick with the raw data if I were you analysing it only makes your position worse.

I know the numbers are false. I cannot prove it. I know that civilians rape more women than do soldiers. Say what you will. Use what numbers you want to prove me wrong. I do not believe you.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Texan
I know the numbers are false. I cannot prove it. I know that civilians rape more women than do soldiers. Say what you will. Use what numbers you want to prove me wrong. I do not believe you.

Im know the moon is made of green cheese and inhabited by Venusian Monkeys, but I cannot prove it.

Now prove me wrong.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
I know the numbers are false. I cannot prove it. I know that civilians rape more women than do soldiers. Say what you will. Use what numbers you want to prove me wrong. I do not believe you.

You misunderstand, civilians DO rape more women than soldiers do, about a hundred times more.

It doesn't alter the fact that (according to the DoJ) a military person is still more likely to be a rapist than a civilian is, it's just that the military is a smaller group so there are obviously less potential rapists.

[edit] If it makes you feel any better I am 100% convinced the same applies to every military force the world over, military service seems to attract them [/edit]

[Judge]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk

It doesn't alter the fact that (according to the DoJ) a military person is still more likely to be a rapist than a civilian is,

Solution, castrate all soldiers upon enlistment.

That will fix it.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
You misunderstand, civilians DO rape more women than soldiers do, about a hundred times more.

It doesn't alter the fact that (according to the DoJ) a military person is still more likely to be a rapist than a civilian is, it's just that the military is a smaller group so there are obviously less potential rapists.

[edit] If it makes you feel any better I am 100% convinced the same applies to every military force the world over, military service seems to attract them [/edit]

I believe the numbers from the DoJ are wrong. I believe that more rapes by service members are reported than rapes by civilians. Why do I believe this? The actions of U.S. service members are tracked more closely than that of civilians.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Texan
I believe the numbers from the DoJ are wrong. I believe that more rapes by service members are reported than rapes by civilians. Why do I believe this? The actions of U.S. service members are tracked more closely than that of civilians.

What you believe or do not believe is completely irrelevant.

It is what you can PROVE using EVIDENCE that is.

Gayle29uk > u

[Tactitus]

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

Yes, and lots of rapes never get reported as well. But the real problem is trying to apply national statistics to select populations. Military bases aren't representative of national populations: they're almost exclusively male (and--surprize--rapists tend to be male), generally young adults (how many soliders are infants or senior citizens?), generally unmarried, probably weighted towards the lower socio-economic strata but with those having criminal records excluded. Any similarity between crimes rates commited by military personnel and the general population they're selected from is accidental.

Beyond that, how did this get turned into a rape thread? It's obvious that basing large numbers of military personnel in an area/country is going to lead to some increased crime. It will also generate some benefits--primarily economic and, of course, increased security in the event of hostilities. Any area/country has to weigh the good against the bad. Generally, areas/countries choose to host military bases and, when they don't, it's usually for reasons that have nothing to do with crime rates.

In the case of Japan, there are some other considerations. First, Japan pays part of the cost of maintaining US bases there (nearly $5B in FY97). Obviously, that takes some of the bloom off the benefit. Second, in the case of Okinawa, some of the resentment towards the US presense has to do with the location and--especially--the size of US bases, which take up a significant portion of the Okinawa Prefecture.

[Sub]

I don't think NATO should be in existance at all anymore.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Sub
I don't think NATO should be in existance at all anymore.

Thinking is hard, leave it to those with a brain

[Sub]

Maybe for you it is. But, many a time you have dazzled us on this forum with your intelligent insights and carefully thought out opinions.
































HEHE.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Sub
Maybe for you it is. But, many a time you have dazzled us on this forum with your intelligent insights and carefully thought out opinions.

I was not refering to me, or my obvious prowess.

I was refering to your obvious lack of any thought whatsoever.

Even a THICKO like you should figure that out, but then again perhaps not.




















He He

[Sub]

Then please explain why an organisation designed to defend against the USSR should still be around. Or are you still fearing that the reds will come into power again?

Originally posted by Judge
Thinking is hard, leave it to those with a brain

you aren't very smart.

[BesigedB]

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

As if they dont block trade as much as they can from outside their clique already.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by BesigedB
As if they dont block trade as much as they can from outside their clique already.

no, not really, the eu still has a few billion of saction right against the us which were given by the wto because of serveral different incidents. the eu didnt use them yet.
if the us has any problem with access of the agricultural market of the eu they should ****in bring it to the wto, thats what this oraganization is there for.

[Zh|l]

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.

Amusing considering it was America that fiercely opposed Europe trying to create a standing "Europe" army to do such a thing. Lets not forget that alot of Europe has fought eachother also - there is no 'competition' for influence really within the USA states. You can hardly compare the USA and the EU just because of that.

[Terra Australis]

Originally posted by Sub
Then please explain why an organisation designed to defend against the USSR should still be around. Or are you still fearing that the reds will come into power again?

The fact that there is other dangers in the world besides just the reds.

The Ruskies have got there own problem with the Chechchen rebels.
There are other issues at large, the fact is that Nato is a stablising presence to the Europeans, the fact is that you lot cant live together properly.

Wars since the 1700's have proven this... not to mention the fact that two world wars originated in Europe last century.

No other region, other than the middle east has had such instability, and the middle East has only been since Israel was created, nothing against the Israelis here.....

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Terra Australis
The fact that there is other dangers in the world besides just the reds.

The Ruskies have got there own problem with the Chechchen rebels.
There are other issues at large, the fact is that Nato is a stablising presence to the Europeans, the fact is that you lot cant live together properly.

Wars since the 1700's have proven this... not to mention the fact that two world wars originated in Europe last century.

No other region, other than the middle east has had such instability, and the middle East has only been since Israel was created, nothing against the Israelis here.....

im sorry, but that is the worst crap ive ever read.
there is no need for nato anymore. it does not help at all to fight terrorism, the whole organization just makes it worse.
the eu stabilizes europe, not the nato. if we still would like wars, there wouldnt be 60-80% who dont want that stupid war on iraq.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im sorry, but that is the worst crap ive ever read.
there is no need for nato anymore. it does not help at all to fight terrorism, the whole organization just makes it worse.
the eu stabilizes europe, not the nato. if we still would like wars, there wouldnt be 60-80% who dont want that stupid war on iraq.

Complete bollox.

~~~~~~~~

The EU is about as much use as a chocolate kettle when it comes to Security/Defence issues.

There ahs been a project to build a so called super duper Euro Fighter for the last 20 Years, and so far only 6 prototypes have been produced, at a cost of Billions.

Italy Pulled out of the prioject, France decided to change the design after it was approved, Germany, well dont even got there........

NATO is a neccesity, not an option.

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Ulysses
Complete bollox.

~~~~~~~~

The EU is about as much use as a chocolate kettle when it comes to Security/Defence issues.

There ahs been a project to build a so called super duper Euro Fighter for the last 20 Years, and so far only 6 prototypes have been produced, at a cost of Billions.

Italy Pulled out of the prioject, France decided to change the design after it was approved, Germany, well dont even got there........

NATO is a neccesity, not an option.

Only for Europe. If we pulled out, who cares if the Euros can't get their fighters flying, not like we were going to use it anyways.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Amusing considering it was America that fiercely opposed Europe trying to create a standing "Europe" army to do such a thing. Lets not forget that alot of Europe has fought eachother also - there is no 'competition' for influence really within the USA states. You can hardly compare the USA and the EU just because of that.

The countries in Europe have armies. They could not stop the genocide in the Balkans. Do you remember the pictures of Dutch soldiers tied to Serbian ammo dumps? Or were you six years old at the time that happened? Europe tried. Europe failed. No one is afraid of Europe. People are afraid of Britain. People are afraid of France. Europe as a whole is ineffectual. If Europe wants to develop an Allied Rapid Response Corps, they do not need the permission of the United States, they need the will to actually create the corps. Where is it?

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Texan
People are afraid of France.

That might require backup.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Scoot951
That might require backup.

Is is not France that people are afraid of, it is the smell of Garlic.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Ulysses
Complete bollox.

~~~~~~~~

The EU is about as much use as a chocolate kettle when it comes to Security/Defence issues.

There ahs been a project to build a so called super duper Euro Fighter for the last 20 Years, and so far only 6 prototypes have been produced, at a cost of Billions.

Italy Pulled out of the prioject, France decided to change the design after it was approved, Germany, well dont even got there........

NATO is a neccesity, not an option.

it only doesnt work, because noone really tryed yet, there is the nato after all, the eu doesnt need to care about security yet. thats the whole problem.
that euro-fighter isnt all that bad. im not sure if that was a french idea, but the first design of it was too expensive.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Scoot951
That might require backup.

Last time I checked France had nuclear weapons. I know they have special forces that can disappear in the forest and appear next to their enemies. I have seen them with my own eyes. Those guys are scary.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Texan
Last time I checked France had nuclear weapons. I know they have special forces that can disappear in the forest and appear next to their enemies. I have seen them with my own eyes. Those guys are scary.

I hate to point out the obvious, but if they can dissapear and you saw them.....................................?

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
it only doesnt work, because noone really tryed yet, there is the nato after all, the eu doesnt need to care about security yet. thats the whole problem.
that euro-fighter isnt all that bad. im not sure if that was a french idea, but the first design of it was too expensive.

Defending freedom is too expensive for Europe. Let the United States pay for defense while the Europeans pay unemployed people a stipend for their pets. In Germany if you are unemployed, you get extra money if you own a dog. Half of the extra money goes to feed the dog and the other half goes to buy alcohol. I say get rid of the pets and provide for the common defense.

Too expensive.... is a total crock.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by wu_trax
it only doesnt work, because noone really tryed yet, there is the nato after all, the eu doesnt need to care about security yet. thats the whole problem.
that euro-fighter isnt all that bad. im not sure if that was a french idea, but the first design of it was too expensive.

The Euro Fighter, is a fantastic piece of kit, I saw it at RAF Linton on Ouse last year. It was going through some Acrobatic manouvers over the airfield that were outstanding.

The problem has not been the project or the concept, but some partners in the project keep moving the goal posts.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Ulysses
I hate to point out the obvious, but if they can dissapear and you saw them.....................................?

I saw them. They disappeared. They reappeared. "Killed" their opponents. This was a training exercise. I did not see them until they popped up and killed the U.S. squad. Can you try harder not to understand what I am writing.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Texan
I saw them. They disappeared. They reappeared. "Killed" their opponents. This was a training exercise. I did not see them until they popped up and killed the U.S. squad. Can you try harder not to understand what I am writing.

/Sarcasm/

Oh I forgot Yanks dont "get" sarcasm.

Off topic, anyway the point is, US troops are $hlte, the worst in the world. So to judge the French against the worst in the world does them no favours.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Defending freedom is too expensive for Europe. Let the United States pay for defense while the Europeans pay unemployed people a stipend for their pets. In Germany if you are unemployed, you get extra money if you own a dog. Half of the extra money goes to feed the dog and the other half goes to buy alcohol. I say get rid of the pets and provide for the common defense.

Too expensive.... is a total crock.

then move your freakin forces out of europe, in that case we have to pay on our own. i only said the first model of the eurofigter was too expensive, just like the newest F-whatever of the us. thats why it was redisgned.
i dont know where you get that dog-story from though. i wonder how the us would handle a political union with mexico or brazil though.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Ulysses
The Euro Fighter, is a fantastic piece of kit, I saw it at RAF Linton on Ouse last year. It was going through some Acrobatic manouvers over the airfield that were outstanding.

The problem has not been the project or the concept, but some partners in the project keep moving the goal posts.

the problem is that at the moment there is no real concept for the whole army. we should develop all weapons together, that would help to reduce the costs of development and the price per unit.
atm we only develope singleequipment together, like the eurofighter or the Airbus A-400M. and in that case every country wants to get a part of the created jobs, this means that one wing is build in spain, the other one in italy, one part in every country. that obviously is crap, because of the high transaction costs.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the problem is that at the moment there is no real concept for the whole army. we should develop all weapons together, that would help to reduce the costs of development and the price per unit.
atm we only develope singleequipment together, like the eurofighter or the Airbus A-400M. and in that case every country wants to get a part of the created jobs, this means that one wing is build in spain, the other one in italy, one part in every country. that obviously is crap, because of the high transaction costs.

That is always assuming that " we" want a European army?

The problems as you say, are clearly the need to develop any piece of kit using a common source, however it would be political suicide, if for exampe the UK were to allow an Aircraft to be built entirely by a french company. Or vice versa.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Ulysses
That is always assuming that " we" want a European army?

The problems as you say, are clearly the need to develop any piece of kit using a common source, however it would be political suicide, if for exampe the UK were to allow an Aircraft to be built entirely by a french company. Or vice versa.

if everyone would concentrate on one aspect it could work. lets say the french buy british ships and uk buys french aircrafts. problem solved. this is an oversimplification, but im sure we could find a deal everyone could live with. whats so bad about an european army? i dont think anyone in europe wants to go to war with anyone else in europe and i think we should make sure that noone gets that idea in the future. but anyway, this idea doesnt require to have a single european army, we just have to coordinate our efforts to develop new equipment.

PS i think a french company is envolved in building your new aircraft carrier

[Texan]

Originally posted by Ulysses
/Sarcasm/

Oh I forgot Yanks dont "get" sarcasm.

Off topic, anyway the point is, US troops are $hlte, the worst in the world. So to judge the French against the worst in the world does them no favours.

They were French reserve special forces vs. U.S. reserve combat support troops.

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.

This is a general discussion forum, not a "I will write some crap about how you can't see things that disappear" forum.

U.S. soldiers may not be the best, but they are certainly not the worst. You, sir, are an idiot to say they are.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
then move your freakin forces out of europe, in that case we have to pay on our own. i only said the first model of the eurofigter was too expensive, just like the newest F-whatever of the us. thats why it was redisgned.
i dont know where you get that dog-story from though. i wonder how the us would handle a political union with mexico or brazil though.

I get that dog story from living in Heidelberg where all of the social cases own a dog. Maybe it is only Baden-Wurttemberg that pays the dog ownership stipend.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by wu_trax
if everyone would concentrate on one aspect it could work. lets say the french buy british ships and uk buys french aircrafts. problem solved. this is an oversimplification, but im sure we could find a deal everyone could live with. whats so bad about an european army? i dont think anyone in europe wants to go to war with anyone else in europe and i think we should make sure that noone gets that idea in the future. but anyway, this idea doesnt require to have a single european army, we just have to coordinate our efforts to develop new equipment.

PS i think a french company is envolved in building your new aircraft carrier

Unfortunately they dont.

Yes a french Company is working on part of the New Aircraft Carrier Project, which was put out to competetive tendering as most major projects are.

The French Co gave a good price and have a track record on delivery of similar projects, unfortunately the short-sighted British Governements of the past have more or less driven the ship building industry into the floor.

ATM, the main contractor in the UK is having to train people to build the damn ship............. not good.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Ulysses
/Sarcasm/

I don't think that's by any means the best description of the content of your post.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I get that dog story from living in Heidelberg where all of the social cases own a dog. Maybe it is only Baden-Wurttemberg that pays the dog ownership stipend.

i also get a lot of stories, but that doesnt mean they have to be true. its true that parts of our social security system are ****, some people get too mcuh money, but that will change in the next years, because we simply cant effort it any more. it doesnt make sence for someone to try to find a job if he/she gets just as much money from social security.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't think that's by any means the best description of the content of your post.

Your JOB is to MODERATE, not to comment.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Ulysses
Your JOB is to MODERATE, not to comment.

My job is to uphold the law.

The only way I know how*.

PEDANTRY.




*This comment may be inaccurate.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
My job is to uphold the law.

The only way I know how*.

PEDANTRY.




*This comment may be inaccurate.

That made me smile.........

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Ulysses
Unfortunately they dont.

but it doesnt have to stay that way, does it? if every country would invest enough money to develope a modern army on their own, that would be a terrible waste of money.

Yes a french Company is working on part of the New Aircraft Carrier Project, which was put out to competetive tendering as most major projects are.

The French Co gave a good price and have a track record on delivery of similar projects, unfortunately the short-sighted British Governements of the past have more or less driven the ship building industry into the floor.

ATM, the main contractor in the UK is having to train people to build the damn ship............. not good.

i dont know much about the whole project, but after what i have read the project was given to a british company, but that company does work together with their main competitor.
and it wasnt your goverment which ruined the shipbuilding industry, it was the koreans who give lots of subsideries to their own ship building industry and by doing that ruined a lot of companies all across europe. a company cant survive on military projects only.

[Ulysses]

\o/ page 3

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Scoot951
That might require backup.

They may not be what they were but the Legion d' Etranger are still one of the scariest ass groups of people in the world, and they work for France.

The 1er Regiment Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine (French SAS) are also considered rather good at what they do.

While I wouldn't consider the French military as a whole to be 'first class' in the same way I would US/UK/German troops their special forces are not people you'd want to be on 'the other side'.

[Marilyn Manson]

What a bizzare article.

The moving of European bases, or indeed just getting rid of bases, I can agree with, provided it is based around the notion of moving bases because of strategic concerns, and not as some sort of tit-for-tat idiocy such as he implies. Goodness knows, The US could do with cutting it's defence budget in some areas and spending it in more worthy areas.

But on the Middle Eastern and Asian bases? Wtf? Has this man being smoking something? These are the two areas that are conflict hot spots, and the areas that The US is most likely to become invovled in, now and in the future. What the hell is the benefit in moving them?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
But on the Middle Eastern and Asian bases? Wtf? Has this man being smoking something? These are the two areas that are conflict hot spots, and the areas that The US is most likely to become invovled in, now and in the future. What the hell is the benefit in moving them?

one question remains: would these areas be hot spot if there would be no us-troops around?