Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#41

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #35
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time you comment on here you show a little bit more of how little you understand of how the world works. It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Ger…

> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars…

> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.

Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks.

And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR.

Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#42

Post by rayiner »

jacquesm wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars…

> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were n…

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States.

The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it.

Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.

We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#43

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were n…

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower…

> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence.

So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.

It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view.

You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair).

But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance.

> America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II.

So?

> If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities.

You do know when the US joined WWII don't you?

And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time?

And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome?

> America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.

America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again.

> We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.

You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place.

WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#44

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were n…

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#45

Post by tharmas »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #18
karim79 wrote: post #13

Germany is silent on the Gaza genocide, and silent on the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon. Also Donald Trump doesn't have a fucking clue. To get back to the point, I actually do not understand why there are any US soldiers here to begin with. Is it just posturing?

There are two broad reasons why the US has troops in Germany (and in Europe overall). 1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe. 2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east.…

And number 3:

To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA.

That's the main reason they are there.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#46

Post by phs318u »

rayiner wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us. Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks. And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were n…

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower…

> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence

If you change “America” to “the American Military Industrial Complex”, then the claim is self-evident. There are some that equate those two.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#47

Post by jacquesm »

phs318u wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower…

> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence If you change “America” to “the American Military Industrial Complex”, then the claim is self-evident. There are some that equate those two.

Division of the spoils is not up to the outside.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#48

Post by brazukadev »

tharmas wrote: post #45
icegreentea2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two broad reasons why the US has troops in Germany (and in Europe overall). 1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe. 2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east.…

And number 3: To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA. That's the main reason they are there.

OP is probably from the US and only see "America" as the good guy.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#49

Post by watwut »

rayiner wrote: post #36
watwut wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit. Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.

Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?

To be able to take territory when it wants something like greenland? Cause speaking about NATO, exactly one country triggerend article 5 and then threatened other members.

Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations.

Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver.

America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.

Re: U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

#50

Post by rayiner »

jacquesm wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it. Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower…

> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA…

I don’t think this issue is so settled that you just get to say “research it yourself” instead of making your case. Whether the global empire makes America as a whole richer or poorer is highly disputed. And it’s not just the distribution of the spoils as you say. The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole. Your theory could actually change the premise of the anti-empire left significantly.

> America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause

But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. America was already the richest country by far before it used that wealth to become a military superpower. In fact the GDP per capita ratio of the U.S. to France was about the same before World War II as it is today. Heck, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about how much richer Americans were than Europeans back in the 1830s.

Post reply on HN