Trump supported by German Left

[helmut]

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

Not to the majority. In many countries, the masses have got no prosperity, in not a few cases they got poorer.

But to be fgair: Europe is not much better, China is worse ...

 

[Albion]

Not to the majority. In many countries, the masses have got no prosperity, in not a few cases they got poorer.

But to be fgair: Europe is not much better, China is worse ...

And if the USA had not shouldered an inordinate share of the budget all these years, what you are referring to would have been worse yet! No doubt about that.

 

[Tom 1]

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.

There are US bases in most of the former soviet satellite countries.

 

[helmut]

And if the USA had not shouldered an inordinate share of the budget all these years, what you are referring to would have been worse yet! No doubt about that.

Well, we (Germany) paid somewhat more per capita, and definitely more measured by gnp. How do you got the idea you paid "an inordinate share"?

 

[Albion]

Well, we (Germany) paid somewhat more per capita, and definitely more measured by gnp. How do you got the idea you paid "an inordinate share"?

Did you take a look at the chart that was provided earlier?

 

[disciple Clint]

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

Fails to qualify as evidence for your post

 

[disciple Clint]

The UN, I suppose.

Sounds like you do not care as long as it is not out of your pocket.

 

[helmut]

Did you take a look at the chart that was provided earlier?

Which chart?

The USA pay 22%, Germany 6% of the UN budget. The USA have about 328 million inhabitants, Germany 83 million. So we pay more per capita than the USA. Same with the gnp: USA about 20 quadrillion, Germany about 4 quadrillion US$. You have about five times gnp, but pay less than 4 times, compared with us.

 

[helmut]

Sounds like you do not care as long as it is not out of your pocket.

It is logical to assume that the UN pay for it. You also have no information to the contrary, right?

 

[Albion]

Which chart?

Apparently you found it. The one that shows America shouldering much more of the financial burden than would make sense if it were not that America has been willing to defend and assist the rest of the world to a degree that no other nation in recent times has done.

And our reward is to be denounced if we so much as reduce that contribution in the slightest.

 

[helmut]

Which chart?

Apparently you found it.

No, I got my figures from a German website.

The one that shows America shouldering much more of the financial burden than would make sense

It makes very much sense that the rich should give more than the poor. And despite the fact that the USA are richer than Germany, they pay less per capita. This does does not make sense indeed, but in another way than you suggest.

We do not run along shouting: The USA should pay more to the UN, it is not fair that they pay less than we do (relative to population rsp. gnp), and we surely do not demand that poor countries like Mexico or Bangla Desh should pay more. It is you selfish Americans that complaint. It reminds me of the Britains that complaint to pay to much to the EU ... and like you they used statistical tricks to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Albion]

No, I got my figures from a German website.

Sorry. The chart in question is to be found in one of the first posts on this thread. If you start scanning beginning with the OP, you'll come upon it quickly..

It makes very much sense that the rich should give more than the poor.

Not necessarily. Unless the proponent is a Socialist.

And Germany, it could be argued, has over the years been much more in need of the benefits that those contributions supposedly pay for than the USA.

 

[helmut]

Not necessarily. Unless the proponent is a Socialist.

That has nothing to do with socialism. You cannot demand that a person earning 2$ a day pays the same than you, or even the same as one who earns thousands of dollars a day.

And Germany, it could be argued, has over the years been much more in need of the benefits that those contributions supposedly pay for than the USA.

Do you really want to tell me that the USA had less need to avoid a nuclear war than Germany? Or take the case of a preemptive nuclear strike of the USSR against China: The "nuclear winter" following that would be mor5e severe in America than in Europe.

I can't see that the overall "need" for the US was less than the "need" for Germany.

 

[Albion]

Do you really want to tell me that the USA had less need to avoid a nuclear war than Germany? Or take the case of a preemptive nuclear strike of the USSR against China: The "nuclear winter" following that would be mor5e severe in America than in Europe.

I can't see that the overall "need" for the US was less than the "need" for Germany.

If it were to be a conventional war--which is more likely than the kind of worldwide nuclear disaster you referred to--then yes.

And if it were to be that civilization-ending event everyone was fixated on in the 1960s, Germany's help would not make any difference.

 

[helmut]

If it were to be a conventional war--which is more likely than the kind of worldwide nuclear disaster you referred to--then yes.

I remember those times. It was expected that in case of a conventional war, the Warsaw pact would win, and in consequence the NATO would start using nuclear weapons. That was the official line, not often told in plain English (or understandable German), but combining several statements from military and/or politicians, you could see this clearly

This was the only realistic scenario of a conventional war in which Germany was involved, and if you theorize about other wars (against, say, Switzerland), Germany would probably be able to stand any such (theoretical) aggression.

And if it were to be that civilization-ending event everyone was fixated on in the 1960s, Germany's help would not make any difference.

Therefore, it was essential to limit international conflicts and so avoid any escalation into catastrophe.

in other words: Contribution to safety are not only military, but also strengthening of international organizations, international cooperation, diplomacy, and international law. Germany did not little for this objective, especially in times of "detention"

This (you should work for safety in non-military ways) still holds for today, because the risk of a nuclear escalation is not zero. Trump has increased it.