Will I stand corrected? Hell no!
You are correct about why they were established, but the question remains, why are they still there?
And I think @Asmo hit the nail on the head, it's to exert power.
I mean, the U.S. have bases in Belgium and the Netherlands, surely those we're not established because they were not allowed to have their own military after the war. Or Portugal and Spain... or even the 10 bases in the UK.
The only exception to the once-we've-got-our-boot-in-the-door-we're-never-gonna-leave rule I've found is France, were they basically threw the U.S. out in 1966.

Sorry newtboy, but you're wrong on that one. Can't find any info on Japan other than that they got their own military back in 1954. But Germany's Bundeswehr was founded in 1955 and was by the mid 60s already at over 400.000 men, to stop the "evil russians" taking over Europe (That's about the same strength as the British Army at that time).

It's even worse than that, the deniers are actively trying to stop anyone in their reach from conducting climate science:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse

I wonder how long the seal between the barrel and drum holds.
With your normal household revolver the gasses escaping from there are quite dangerous, scaled up to a shotgun shell wouldn't want that so close to my face.
That being said I undertand the burn velocity of the propellant is probably lower than that of a revolver cartridge, but is it significant?
Any Videosift Munitions/Firearms expert wanna school me a bit on that?

Talk about 'speaking english, I think', rereading my comment makes it seem like I could be saying 'She isn't hard to understand, you're stupid for saying so', totally not what I meant to say.

I guess it just comes down to having heard those accents more or being around bad english speakers while learning the language.
I jokingly refer anyone mentioning having difficulties understanding spoken english to watch episodes of The Sky At Night with the late Sir Patrick Moore, almost no accent will give you trouble after that and you learn about the universe
example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60oPFChu1U

As a non-native english speaker, where was the difficult to understand part?

*ban

I know what you're trying to say, but for me closely examining a movie never gave me a net increase in enjoyment; finding plotholes and other things that just made no sense always outweighed any clever hidden meanings/insights.

Moral of the story:
Analyzing movies ruins them.

this never gets old

Great, now I'm happy and smiling!

On a less serious note: Interlaced video in 2015? *sigh*

So uneducated it hurts.
No need to even involve religion in this, he just lacks a basic understanding of physics.

The whole 'controversy' around the video is so stupid. Sexuality is subjective, not objective.
Calling a thing, like this video, perverted or pedophiliac says more about you than the object.

*ban

Well @eric3579, Red Bull gives you wings, and what else has wings? Angles! Q.E.D.