At 01:53 9-2-02 -0500, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Well, some quick work on the net (and it was surprisingly hard to convert
>from NLG to US Dollars)
Why was it so hard? It is fairly simple really; converting NLG to USD is
basically <amount in NLG> divided by 2.5 (not *entirely* accurate, but
close enough for a quick calculation).
>revealed that this works out to approximately $210 million dollars.
A bit less, actually. NLG 462 million is equivalent to approx. USD 185 million.
One thing to keep in mind is that we have a different standard of living
over here. Any amount in NLG is a lot more to us than the equivalent in USD
is to Americans. (Compare: Joe Average earns approx. USD 38,000 per year;
his Dutch cousin earns approx. NLG 38,000 per year).
>The United States has been spending approximately $1B per
>week in Afghanistan. The campaign began, let's say, October 1st. I'll be
>very conservative in all my estimates. That's 4 months, so 16 weeks, or
>$16B. That means that the Netherlans $210M works out to around 1.3% of the
>total financial expenditure. I will admit that's more than I thought it
>would be (anyone want to check my math?), but, really, in the United States
>at least we don't call 1% an overwhelmingly significant contribution.
Well, what would you expect from such a small country? We are not exactly
in a position to make a multi-billion dollar contribution. As much as our
generals would like to, we do not have the US military budget to spend on
our Defense.
>Jeroen:
>There is of course a very good reason that other countries have military
>hardware that is inferior to US military hardware: money. Unlike the US,
>most countries can not afford to spend billions on their defense. Heck,
>there are countries whose *entire* annual budget is less than what the US
>spends on its military alone.
>
>Me:
>Well, that is what I said. We spend money. The rest of the world doesn't.
>That's a _choice_ on the part of the rest of the world. Europe is not
>_that_ much less wealthy than the US.
Maybe me are not that much less wealthy (I do not have the figures). The
real problem here is not that we do not spend money, but that Europe is not
one large country like the US but a collection of several sovereign
nations. Because of that, we have a lot of overhead and redundancy. If and
when we turn into The United States of Europe, that situation will
certainly improve. (But I do not expect to see Europe becoming one large
country in my lifetime.) We are working towards a joined European defense,
but that is a process that will take years.
>Jeroen:
>You sure know how to make others feel appreciated. Why did the US call on
>other countries (pretty much the rest of the world) to join the war against
>Iraq, if those others would just "get in the way"? Was it because they
>could make a valuable contribution, or was it because the US needed cannon
>fodder? ("Hey, why let the Iraqis kill US troops if we can get someone else
>to catch the bullets.")
>
>Me:
>First - I'm not a spokesman for the US government. Thus I'm not
>constrained by the need to lie in order to avoid wounding the delicate
>sensibilities of other countries. I can tell the truth as it really is.
>If the truth offends you, Jeroen, that's not my problem. I'm sorry, but
>it's really not my problem.
I would have expected better from you, Gautam. You are a student of
international politics. You are the one here that wants to pursue a career
in international politics; perhaps you even have the ambition to be
appointed Ambassador some day. You of all people should know that careful
phrasing is everything in that line of work. A ill-phrased statement (no
matter how well-intended it was) has the potential to lead to an
international incident.
Do not take this as an personal attack, because it is not intended that
way. Rather, see it as an opportunity: you are a member of *this*
international community, here you have the chance to learn the way to
Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice. :-)
(Who would have thought this discussion could be made Brin-related, huh?) :-)
>Obviously, the historical reason for NATO's
>existence ("keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down")
>has been largely obviated, although not entirely.
True. Still got to keep those Germans down. <grin>
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
