Re: Re: AMERICANS

I believe they very well might already

I know that some the training grounds we used in Germany were leased
from "someone" (probably the Gov't or Germany) while others were "Owned"
by the US Army and thus the US pays property taxes on them.  In
addition, monies were paid for the rounds fired at certain ranges as a
tax for the pollution (noise and otherwise) and the lead concerns of
those rounds that "soaked" the ground.

I can't imagine that similar arrangements haven't been made in Britain. 
If not, then it is very likely that a treaty precludes it.  If that's
the case, then "Wah."

Of all the "host nations" I have anything but a passing knowledge of, I
think it's the Japanese of Okinawa that have the most to gripe about
versus our soldier's presence and effect on their lives:   Far too many
Marines (a minority of them to be sure, but enough to spoil it for
everyone else) seem to think that Japanese women (and little girls,
horribly enough) willingly welcome whatever the creepy soldiers'
misogynistic mind can think up.

--Flak

On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 09:21, sowerbyj@fiu.edu wrote:
> > As of the early 90's, I heard that the U.S. was still keeping track
of the
> > interest.  Source was a Political Science professor at the local
University.
> > I don't know if the Brits are still paying, he didn't mention if
they were
> > or weren't.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, if the US are keeping track of the interset, perhaps the UK
should start charging rent for the airbases that the US have in the UK. 
> 
> John S.
> 
>