How do Americans feel about US military bases in Europe?

As European I'm against some bad habits that the base carries. They're good for the economy but they also bring cancerous substances underground which infected the water of a whole city and consequently gave cancer to my mother and many others.

I just wish there were more regulations that could prevent it.

Gives recruiter's ammunition to keep the Numbers up a Posting to Italy Germany Poland England for your MOS is possible

and Idiots cant Sign up quick enough

I'm neither for or against. That's why we have generals, that's thier job. Although I think we can save a lot of money not having so many bases around the world.

The amount of money we spend in Europe has probably prevented more than one country from falling into a severe recession

It would be great if the U.S.'s European allies actually carried their fair share of the cost of their national defense, as well as that of the NATO alliance. Since that isn't the case, they rely on America to carry the load by maintaining a system of bases, logistics, and infrastructure to do the job. A side benefit is that it allows folks from the US to experience other countries and cultures.

.

Totally against --

I'm totally for spending that money on the US :

[is that patriotic ?]

the enviro, infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

instead of yesteryears' militaristic relics.

Oh, and a fundamental econ fact for the faded flagwavers lost in their nostalgia of wars of long-gone eras :

spending on those things is an INVESTMENT,

not a cost,

they MAKE / SAVE money for the U.S. of A,

isnt that patriotic?

or is only watching ceremonial shows of B-52's and parades of with tanks w/ dressed-up soldiers patriotic?

x

http://tinyurl.com/pxoe3df CBS June 2015

.

The F-35 fighter jet: a 20 yr, $400 billion project, 2,500 planes --

.

“7 yrs behind schedule, abt $160 billion over budget.”

.

The Air Force chief of staff says it’s “clearly on track ---”

.

“strategic agility for our Air Force is a guiding principle for the future," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh.

x

http://tinyurl.com/n29eq6m . Time.com Jan, 2015.

.

The US Dept of Energy will spend $1 trillion on new nuclear weapons.

.

“The US Dept of Energy spends more on nuclear weapons now in real dollars than

.

“at the height of the Cold War.”

.

“The DoE’s National Nuclear Security Administration

.

“is planning to spend one Trillion dollars in 30 yrs

.

“to create a new generation of more accurate, deadly weapons.”

.

The decades-long unsuccessful cleanup of weapons-

generated plutonium at the Hanford, WA storage site

costs taxpayers $1 billion / yr

.

x

.

http://time.com/4161613/us-arms-sales-exports-weap...

.

The United States remains the world’s preeminent exporter of arms,

with more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market controlled by the US as of 2014; sales @ $36 billion.

Trailing the U.S. in weapons receipts is Russia, with $10.2 billion in sales in 2014,

followed by Sweden with $5.5 billion, France with $4.4 billion and China with $2.2 billion, reports The New York Times.

The top weapons buyer in 2014 was South Korea, a key American ally, which has been squaring off with an increasingly belligerent North Korea in recent years.

Iraq was the second biggest weapons buyer, as the country seeks to build up its military capacity following the withdrawal of the bulk of American ground troops there.

Brazil was the third biggest buyer, primarily of Swedish aircraft.

x

If you're referring to U.S. Bases in Europe;then I'm against them. If you're just referring to European bases;then I couldn't care less.

Against, like totally.

I'd advocate spending that money on domestic issues, the infrastructure, education, health care, etc. instead.

I think we should close them down, sell off the real estate, and come home