Sorry for the double-post.
That’s not all you have to apologize for, I assure you.
What, if any, is your thesis here? It’s hard to make it out among the reams of confused equivocation.
US market leadership in most fields is traceable directly to the Marshall plan. I would posit that is plenty of ROI, even if returns are diminishing with European companies achieving leadership in more and more sectors.
Ramstein was used in practically every major US operation of late. It was key to Afghanistan, with practically all relief ‘bombers’ starting there (and many combat flights), and it was key in Iraq. Without Landstuhl, casualties in all these conflicts would have been much higher, and as such more difficult to ‘sell’ to the US public. As such, not having these facilities (in addition to the huge military training facilities also in Germany) would necessitate an enormous remodeling of military strategy on the world level. Other facilities would have to be expanded drastically, troops would have to be redeployed -possible on that scale only after the plans are there, and threatening readiness during and for quite some time after redeployment until the facilities are in a state supporting the new deployment pattern. Overall, the costs would be close to prohibitive, readiness for quick reaction would be seriously impaired for quite some time, and the strategy afterwards would bear little similarity to the one before.
You’d be surprised how many people actually asked for the government to do just that. However, reacting to a knee-jerk policy befitting a teen in puberty with a knee-jerk policy befitting a teen in puberty is not precisely a testimony of more maturity. Given that the US only paid lip service to the Turkish prohibition and scolded the turkish parliament for daring to make a sovereign decision, it would have been of questionable use anyway. Nevertheless, Belgium and Austria denied transit rights, and Switzerland even stopped all arms exports to nations involved in the war.
What accusations did you make? You quoted them yourself. Your statement is just stopping short enough of suggesting Nazi-like rabid nationalism on my part to ensure deniability, and shows quite a lot of lack of historical sensitivity.
a)I’d suggest you pay a bit more attention on how offensive your own remarks are before complaining about others.
b)it is fully in line with numerous arguments presented by others here who see a connection between the number of dead and the number of coffers one is entitled to plunder.