Iceland Presses U.S. Not to Remove Jets

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: charrison
Let me see if i have this right.

World complains that the US has too many troops stationed abroad.
US tries to close foreigh base, local country complains.


Classic America cant do anything right.
Thanks for simplifying things for us.
Glad to help, the simple are often missed around here.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iceland is a nobody on the international scene.
-------------------------
I love how nicely that slides off the tongue. You know I have such a discriminating mind. Yes yes yes. This is this and that is that and that's the way it is. Oh dear, where have I put my monocle?
.

Iceland is right up there with Lybia... Wonder which ought to be on the UN Human Rights Committee... maybe Security Counsel..
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: charrison
Let me see if i have this right.

World complains that the US has too many troops stationed abroad.
US tries to close foreigh base, local country complains.


Classic America cant do anything right.
Thanks for simplifying things for us.
Glad to help, the simple are often missed around here.
That's right, Charrison.
It sure is a good thing there's NO difference between a friendly country such as Iceland, wanting a U.S. presence... as opposed to a volitile middle eastern country that... doesn't want a U.S. presence. Oh well... "Classic America can't do anything right", right?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iceland is a nobody on the international scene.
-------------------------
I love how nicely that slides off the tongue. You know I have such a discriminating mind. Yes yes yes. This is this and that is that and that's the way it is. Oh dear, where have I put my monocle?
.

Iceland is right up there with Lybia... Wonder which ought to be on the UN Human Rights Committee... maybe Security Counsel..
hey think we will be in the security council after the next rotation
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
maybe we can quietly bring home the four F-15 jets and replace them with four P-51 Mustangs from WWII, I don't think the icelanders can tell the differences...
they will be as good "air defense" as 4 F-15 can be...
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
P-51s are very rare today. I wouldn't put all of those eggs into the Icelander's basket. Perhaps the U.S. could arrange for a shipment of a few Segways instead? I'm not sure if Segways are tested on rugged terrain but you could chain-up the tires in case Iceland ever gets a good dose of ice.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Phuz
Originally posted by: charrison
Let me see if i have this right.

World complains that the US has too many troops stationed abroad.
US tries to close foreigh base, local country complains.


Classic America cant do anything right.
Thanks for simplifying things for us.
Glad to help, the simple are often missed around here.
That's right, Charrison.
It sure is a good thing there's NO difference between a friendly country such as Iceland, wanting a U.S. presence... as opposed to a volitile middle eastern country that... doesn't want a U.S. presence. Oh well... "Classic America can't do anything right", right?

Lets use SK as an example. The populance complained about us being there until the military offered to leave. It seems not many in SK really wanted us to leave.

Lets also use Germany as an example. German bases just are not needed anymore. Ramstein is likely to stay, but the rest are likely to closed or shrunk. Now Germany is complaining about these closings.


We want to remove our troops from Bosnia and Kosovo. Everytime we time we do Europe complains about us not doing enough.

It seems my classic example of America can do right is more often correct than incorrect.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison

Lets use SK as an example. The populance complained about us being there until the military offered to leave. It seems not many in SK really wanted us to leave.

Lets also use Germany as an example. German bases just are not needed anymore. Ramstein is likely to stay, but the rest are likely to closed or shrunk. Now Germany is complaining about these closings.


We want to remove our troops from Bosnia and Kosovo. Everytime we time we do Europe complains about us not doing enough.

It seems my classic example of America can do right is more often correct than incorrect.
Yep. Also see Czar's "insightful" comment from above:

"actually no, we value the income that comes with the base"
They call the cow nearly every name in the book. They criticize the color and texture of his hide. They criticize his walk. They scream obscenities at the cow. They constantly remind him of how "awful" and "evil" he his.

But good golly Miss Molly, they sure love the hell outta that sweet milk.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
To be fair, Iceland does have some valid complaints. The economic impact of pulling the soldiers and the associated jobs that go with it would be equivilant to slightly under 3 million jobs in the U.S-and from what I've heard it would happen rather fast. That is assuming the soldiers are pulled.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Doesn't the Air Force punish Officers and Airmen by stationing them in Iceland? It's kind of a frozen Alcatraz for the Air Force isn't it?!
Actually, I've talked to a few people that have been stationed there, and they all liked it. Maybe you're thinking about Thule Air Base in Greenland or Eielson in Alaska.

To be fair, Iceland does have some valid complaints. The economic impact of pulling the soldiers and the associated jobs that go with it would be equivilant to slightly under 3 million jobs in the U.S-and from what I've heard it would happen rather fast. That is assuming the soldiers are pulled.
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Lucky
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
How slowly should we move 4 f-15s? But youare right, no sense in pissing off an ally.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,144
5,306
126
Originally posted by: Lucky
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
A billion plus a week in Iraq might have something to do with it.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Lucky
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
How slowly should we move 4 f-15s? But youare right, no sense in pissing off an ally.

Well, I was more speaking of the troops. As of yet I don't think there are any definitive plans to remove them, but it's kinda complicated.
I've been reading up at another forum on this topic where several icelanders have posted in detail the consequence the removal of the jets might ultimately have. It's a good read if you have time.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Lucky
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
How slowly should we move 4 f-15s? But youare right, no sense in pissing off an ally.
Sure, keeping good relations is important. I think the F-15s are rotated out of RAF Lakenheath anyway. And we have withdrawn a significant amount of personnel from there since 1995.

But here is my question then since an agreement was "reached" in 1994 between Iceland and the US essentially concluding that the Cold War was indeed over. How much longer? And suppose we continue operations there, how much more is the Icelandic government willing to contribute for their own defense (read: economic assistance to the tune of 1.5% GDP).

 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
Tough. Military bases overseas were never intended as US government handouts to host countries. The reason for the base no longer exists since Russia's military is rusting these days.

Indeed you are correct. But what's the sense in pissing off a rather staunch ally if a gradual withdrawal could be made? No explanation has been given for the urgency of why the jets need to be removed.
The installation there isn't all that large so moving it won't take very long. Since money is ALWAYS tight in the military because of competing priorities, moving them quickly saves money in the short and long term. Plus, if as it says above, the contract was up two years ago (haven't read it for myself), then it's hardly a "sudden move". It hasn't been a close-held secret that the Soviet Union died over a decade ago.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY