[leftyted]

I didn't say that. I said that, without the US presence in Germany and without NATO, Germany would have to spend more on defense.

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious. The German government certainly knows it, which is they allow the Americans to keep 30,000 troops in their country.

A lot of people on HN have an extreme anti-US bias. It's pretty tiring.

[GordonS]

My comment didn't display any anti-US sentiment, so your strawman falls down.

> I don't understand how anyone can disagree with that; it's obvious

No, it's far from obvious.

Those troops are now there to serve US interests, not German ones, primarily using Germany as a logistics base for deployments/missions in the Middle East.

Indeed, there's an argument to made that their spend could even reduce, since they might become less of a target.

[leftyted]

It's obvious to people without extreme anti-American bias.

Also, maybe don't throw out terms like "strawman" when you bizarrely transfigured my innocuous comment:

> The 30,000 US troops stationed in Germany and the existence of NATO are significant factors in European countries spending so little on defense.

into:

> This is a total fallacy - those troops being stationed in Germany does not mean Germany would station 30k of their own should the US troops leave.

edit - It should be clear to anyone reasonable that the way you interpreted my original post evinces anti-American bias. What you don't seem to understand is that US interests and Germany interests have significant overlap. The idea that Germany doesn't benefit from pax Americana is absurd.

That doesn't mean that the US always uses its power responsibility, it just means that things are more complicated than the caricature of US foreign policy that often shows up on this website.

[amalter]

I believe that your position was strong during the cold war. From the end of WWII until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, American troops and bombs were a significant deterrent to Soviet imperialism in Europe.

However, the world has significantly changed since December 1991. I agree with the grandparent that today the primary usage of the large US bases in Germany are for staging people and material to the middle east. I also think that it's a reasonable opinion that these wars (or their scale and length) were unnecessary. Is that opinion evidence of "anti-american bias"? I believe that is an unreasonable conclusion.

So - from the 50's to the 90's did the US "subsidize" European economies to some amount by providing common defense from the USSR? Sure. It also served US interests as the policy was to "fight over there" instead of in the US.

Since then, the US has spent upwards of $3T on the GWOT, while declining in every health statistic year over year.

If we're tossing around charges of "anti-american'ism" - I counter than anyone who wants to continue on with an unchanged healthcare system is "anti-american" - as in literally in favor of a system that causes more children to die at birth, for people to live shorter, less predictable and more brutal lives.

[GordonS]

Sorry, but I think you're seeing what you want to see.

I'm perfectly "reasonable", and it's rationale to question whether German military spend would increase just because some US troops leave.

I understand perfectly well that some US and German interests overlap, but certainly not all. It's also the case that the US does many things that there would be absolutely no appetite for in Germany (I'm not judging those actions here, just making a reasoned point).