President Trump

ablender , clearly you have little time for the US and would prefer to point out the defects, as you see them, in their historical foreign policy rather than focus on their actual losses in WWll and how that might inform their decisions in future.
To the average US citizen I suspect Europe is a distant (and in England's case almost certainly mythical) land full of strange, argumentative and lazy peoples, who have depended on the US military presence since the end of the war to protect them from the Russians. It matters not one jot to them whether their wartime contribution is seen by others as tardy, selfishly motivated or insufficient - the fact is they did fight and did lose thousands of combatants. My original point - made just after 11am on Remembrance Day - was that the enormity (to them) of their losses (and it's much harder to be sniffy about those losses while standing in front of a wall with the names of thousands of dead Americans inscribed on it) may well discourage them from making a similar effort in the future. Does that matter? I rather think so.

My 'arguement', if that is what it must be called, is not, and never was, about absolute numbers. It's about whether the American cavalry will be motivated to ride to the rescue ever again. Are you suggesting that we (Europe) can do without their help?