Trump supported by German Left

[Albion]

Maybe someone else then.

 

[Tom 1]

Why not? Does a force suddenly become less adequate if positioned several hundred miles to the East (and closer to the presumed invaders)?

Germany has a way better infrastructure. If by invaders you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine, US forces are in the EU to coordinate their current mobilisation with allies.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Moving them over to poland isn't going to acchieve that, though. That's just one right wing government pandering to another.

Who is talking about moving American troops to Poland? I'm talking about removing them from Europe entirely.

 

[Nithavela]

Who is talking about moving American troops to Poland?

Trump.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Trump.

He isn't moving troops to Poland even if he yaps or tweets about it.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

He isn't moving troops to Poland even if he yaps or tweets about it.

I think it’s likely that at least some of those troops are going to Poland. That’s what keeps me from getting too excited about this move.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I think it’s likely that at least some of those troops are going to Poland. That’s what keeps me from getting too excited about this move.

Until just now I had no idea we had troops in Poland. Ridiculous. We don't belong there. That said, it appears Trump is expanding our presence there which sort of strikes against the notion that he's some sort of Russian operative. The last thing Russia wants is more Americans in their sphere of influence.

 

[Albion]

That said, it appears Trump is expanding our presence there which sort of strikes against the notion that he's some sort of Russian operative. The last thing Russia wants is more Americans in their sphere of influence.

Of course. And then there are the dozen other steps he's taken that counter Russia's moves. Some of them even get him called a warmonger by the same people who also call him a toady or "asset" of Putin.

 

[helmut]

Most of Europe if not all have failed to pay their fair share to the UN

No, it is the US that fails top pay its share to the UN.

 

[helmut]

AFAIK the issue is not UN contributions ( a total waste of money in terms of defense needs)

Well, making the world more peaceful is no waste of money. This seems to be hard to understand by Americans that understand only one language: the language of power (military and economic).

And it is of course not very efficient as long there are countries that are not willing to obey international law, like North Korea or the USA.

 

[helmut]

OK by the way is the value of the UN building

The area was given to the US by Rockefeller, not by any country. The costs for the building were payed by the UN. You can only take a non-interest loan to the USA that cost the interest not demanded from the UN. But this ia a one-time-payment long ago, and only a very small account of the value of that building.

and all the additional security required considered in the U.S. contribution

This is peanuts compared to the UN budget.

 

[helmut]

We're massively in debt and we're spending trillions on foreign adventures with essentially nothing to show for it. For all our moves in the South China Sea, China has destroyed the autonomy of Hong Kong without a peep from the US.

That's because Trump feels the US are less strong than China. He saw he couldn't win an economic war, so he imposed no sanctions. And there is no option to wage a war against China ...

After 20 years wasted in the middle east, the region is no more stable and because we are now an oil exporter we don't really need their oil anymore.

Loosing the middle east ti Russia or China means in the long run other region will be lost, too. In the end, the USD are only a regional power, with China as the only superpower and Russia and/or India on the same level as the USA.

We would be better off with a foreign policy reset where we pull back our troops and focus our interests in our own hemisphere.

Russia still has a foot in your hemisphere (Cuba), and China will also find way to get in there. If you have nothing outside your hemisphere, you will be in the defense.

If you want that, well. But you should know what the consequences are.

Especially if we stop supporting Christless Israel and their wicked decadence (Tel Aviv, for example, is the gay capital of the world).

Isn't Los Angelos the gay capital of the world? It is no good idea to identify a country with a single city there.

 

[helmut]

Why not? Does a force suddenly become less adequate if positioned several hundred miles to the East (and closer to the presumed invaders)?

It gives Russia a right to complain, because this is break of a promise given to the USSR (by inheritance, now Russia).

Russia will use this right, and make a big propaganda of it, thus influencing the policy of other countries, especially in Europe. And it can declare any countermeasures as a legitimate answer to a breach of promise.

It will make the world more unsafe, and may even get to further disadvantages for the USA.

 

[helmut]

Until just now I had no idea we had troops in Poland.

Only a rather symbolic group. But Poland wants more of them, to be more safe from Russia. And Trumps announced to fulfill this wish.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Only a rather symbolic group. But Poland wants more of them, to be more safe from Russia. And Trumps announced to fulfill this wish.

As a Christian libertarian I oppose any further military expansion. We can't afford this foolishness anymore.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, it is the US that fails top pay its share to the UN.

Show me your evidence

 

[disciple Clint]

The area was given to the US by Rockefeller, not by any country. The costs for the building were payed by the UN. You can only take a non-interest loan to the USA that cost the interest not demanded from the UN. But this ia a one-time-payment long ago, and only a very small account of the value of that building.


This is peanuts compared to the UN budget.

The question is who is paying for it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Seems a rather vague premise to bet the US's control of strategically important areas of the globe. This notion that US troops are stationed in different countries altruistically isn't accurate, withdrawing influence from anywhere means that someone else fills the vacuum. The US (like all world powers) has created plenty of enemies for itself over time, and there are always other nations looking to gain an advantage. Much as some in the US would like to separate the states from the rest of the world, it is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Your criticism is accurate and fair, it's simply wrong to see American presence overseas as being about altruism. It's about the perceived interests of the United States. And that US presence has been critical in creating a certain kind of global order that has brought a great deal of material prosperity to much of the world, including the United States itself. Uncritically dismissing it is simply anti-intellectual.

 

[helmut]

Show me your evidence

Only one example: The USA have stopped paying the WHO, a UN organization.

 

[helmut]

The question is who is paying for it.

The UN, I suppose.