Trump Gave Merkel an Invoice for NATO

[Aho Old Guy]

Low-brow move by the Manhattan Hillbilly.

I believe the NATO 2% has to be put in context. They likely spend a similar percentage as the US for readiness, training and operations. America spends more deploying our 'special interests' (nod-nod, wink-wink), and that's what NATO is pretty much all about. It begins with a B and ends with a 61. We're spending a lot on that.

And, a lot on 'overseas contingency operations,' R&D and procurement <---- BINGO!

We want them to spend more 'procure-ing' our stuff. We make some good stuff.

They don't. Germany and other countries put their eggs in the operational basket and little else. They have zero support and logistics, and no transport. They (and the rest of NATO) depend entirely on us for moving their crap around and putting gas in it.

And if our goal is money for Northrop Grumman, then we should be pulling out if NATO entirely. Defense stocks would double the next day.

I think that's pretty much by design, for a lot of reasons ... and most of them not good.

NATO is the ultimate stand-your-ground bunch. Maintain local order, take a deep breath, and watch this. It's what Uncle Sam was designed to do: Project Power. And the opposition will step back.

Lord knows what happens next. US stand-off versus ? . Escalation to what ? . We got that covered, too, and arguing over the need to spend $20 billion making those tactical dial-a-nukes even 'better.'

Pity the poor defense industrial complex? Oh. Noes. They're on a record wave of R&D and procurement contracts. That gravy train will chug-on, for better or even-better, for some time.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think we are spending on NATO per se. I think we are spending what we spend on the military in our own self interest. We are exerting influence. And we get to have bases all over the place in order to do that.

I think that, if all the other countries in NATO said, "Fine, United States. We're dissolving NATO. Get all your bases, materials, and troops out of our countries" we would be horrified. Of course they wouldn't do that because they have an interest in maintaining the situation as well.

But we're not spending what we spend on our military because NATO makes us. We're doing that because we want to. We can argue about whether we should want to spend as much as we do on the military as we do. But we're not doing it because of NATO. In fact without NATO we might be spending more.

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

Do you not think we want the distribution of presence we have by virtue of the existence of NATO?

[JohnStOnge]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

[SDHornet]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

[CID1990]

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

Do you not think we want the distribution of presence we have by virtue of the existence of NATO?

See, this is why we are going to be needlessly over-extended until the day comes that we get into an existential war in another country nobody ever heard of, over some brush fire that would die out on its own

Consider where we would be if Ukraine was actually a NATO member when Russia annexed Crimea. Now consider where we actually are since Ukraine is NOT a member. (Hint: we aren't at war with Russia... and the sky isn't falling)

Nobody fvcking listens and nobody feels the need to actually question why we NEED to do the things we do. Instead, there are brainless questions about what we WANT. We are in NATO because of inertia, and nobody questions paradigms

Nobody has yet to take a stab at how NATO membership, in this day and age, is in the national interest. Anyone who isn't looking at NATO through that lens is why we'll be stuck on stupid for the rest of our lifetimes

[BDKJMU]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

Yep. Actually by the hundreds of thousands..1.5 million, or something like that..

[Ibanez]

They don't. Germany and other countries put their eggs in the operational basket and little else. They have zero support and logistics, and no transport. They (and the rest of NATO) depend entirely on us for moving their crap around and putting gas in it.

And if our goal is money for Northrop Grumman, then we should be pulling out if NATO entirely. Defense stocks would double the next day.

I think that's pretty much by design, for a lot of reasons ... and most of them not good.

NATO is the ultimate stand-your-ground bunch. Maintain local order, take a deep breath, and watch this. It's what Uncle Sam was designed to do: Project Power. And the opposition will step back.

Lord knows what happens next. US stand-off versus ? . Escalation to what ? . We got that covered, too, and arguing over the need to spend $20 billion making those tactical dial-a-nukes even 'better.'

Pity the poor defense industrial complex? Oh. Noes. They're on a record wave of R&D and procurement contracts. That gravy train will chug-on, for better or even-better, for some time.

That record train of R&D and Procurement contracts stopped years ago, at least for the Navy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

Muslims have been invading king before her. Ask most Germans and their beef is with the Turks coming and taking jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

[

Consider where we would be if Ukraine was actually a NATO member when Russia annexed Crimea.

Do you think Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine had been a member of NATO? If Russia would've been contemplating taking on NATO instead of just taking on Ukraine, do you think they would've attempted it?

[SDHornet]

[

Consider where we would be if Ukraine was actually a NATO member when Russia annexed Crimea.

Do you think Russia would have annexed Crimea if Ukraine had been a member of NATO? If Russia would've been contemplating taking on NATO instead of just taking on Ukraine, do you think they would've attempted it?

Yes...

...because the the leader of the free world at the time would have only drawn a red line in the sand and done absolutely nothing about it.

[JohnStOnge]

[

Nobody has yet to take a stab at how NATO membership, in this day and age, is in the national interest. Anyone who isn't looking at NATO through that lens is why we'll be stuck on stupid for the rest of our lifetimes

I don't know if it's in the national interest or not. But do you not think we want to have all those bases out there? That presence? Are we not trying to project power and maintain that presence to defend what we perceive as our interests?

What do you think would happen if NATO were to be dissolved and all the NATO countries would say, "No US forces in our territories?" Do you think we want that?

I'm not talking about whether we should want it or not. Do you think we would want it?

[CID1990]

[

Nobody has yet to take a stab at how NATO membership, in this day and age, is in the national interest. Anyone who isn't looking at NATO through that lens is why we'll be stuck on stupid for the rest of our lifetimes

I don't know if it's in the national interest or not. But do you not think we want to have all those bases out there? That presence? Are we not trying to project power and maintain that presence to defend what we perceive as our interests?

What do you think would happen if NATO were to be dissolved and all the NATO countries would say, "No US forces in our territories?" Do you think we want that?

I'm not talking about whether we should want it or not. Do you think we would want it?

What the hell do you mean by "we"?

Our entire government is stuck on full retard over NATO. And now it's nothing but a political football because anyone who exhibits any sanity at all over our NATO membership is going to be accused of working for Putin (see John McCain). And voters are perfectly willing to now use Russia to beat the other side over the head with (except Obama, of course.... he's still answering the phone for the 1980s)

So no, WE wouldn't want it. But we need it- it's a no brainer to anyone who understands Russia, because they are rightfully paranoid about standing armies on the mainland

We aren't going to intentionally honor our treaty obligations and get into a shooting war with another nuclear power, period. (We wouldn't even enforce a red line in that sh1thole Syria because the big bad Russians sailed a frigate into their port there, so Putin now definitively knows the score) Putin knows this and he's already testing the waters with prospective members. Wait until he starts destabilizing Estonia or Lithuania.

The way war will happen is we'll beat the drums at Russia when they test us further and then inadvertently stumble into a conflict where a disproportionate number of Americans will once again die for a dying Europe that holds less strategic importance for us by the day

The time to get out was 1992. We're just wasting time and money now

[CID1990]

http://time.com/4718958/montenegro-nato-rand-paul/

Rand Paul on NATO membership for Montenegro. He gets ramble-y towards the end but nails this:

"For decades, NATO has been an organization where the U.S. disproportionately spends our blood and treasure. The other NATO countries have largely hitched a ride to the U.S. train that subsidizes their defenses and allows them to direct their revenues to domestic pursuits."

A couple facts about Montenegro:

GDP is less than any state in the US. In fact you have to look to basket case African countries or Caribbean countries to find a smaller GDP.

Montenegro does not occupy any strategic chokeholds on the continent. It has zero strategic value.

Montenegro has a military that consists of less than 2000 active service members. THE CITADEL is a larger army than all of Montenegro's three service branches combined.

Montenegro's Navy has one frigate. That's their capital ship.

Montenegro has 0 fighter planes. That's zero. None. They have commercial and transport helicopters.

Montenegro has no tanks. They have about 10 APCs rigged as tank destroyers.

Montenegro is an active applicant for NATO membership.

[CID1990]

Hey look

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/german- ... o-mission/

The Poles have some extra M1s we sold them.. maybe they can, in what would be a delicious irony, loan the Germans some tanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

Lol! I work with plenty of those "smart" people all the time.

[CAA Flagship]

Angela Merkel FAILS to meet Nato spending target: Red-faced Germany asks to REDUCE budget

ANGELA Merkel has put Germany’s international credibility on the line after it was revealed Berlin will fail to meet the Nato defence spending target.

And in a bid to save face her defence minister Ursula von der Leyen hinted Germany could ask for the two percent target to be lowered at the next Nato summit.

Mrs Merkel had pledged to meet the Nato spending goal of two percent of GDP on defence a Bundeswehr, German armed forces, conference, after a dressing down from US President Donald Trump.

However Mrs von der Leyen admitted Germany would not make the 2024 deadline it agreed to at the Nato summit in Wales in 2014.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/95 ... -trump-usa


Fuck You, Germany. You're on your own.

[Ibanez]

Angela Merkel FAILS to meet Nato spending target: Red-faced Germany asks to REDUCE budget

ANGELA Merkel has put Germany’s international credibility on the line after it was revealed Berlin will fail to meet the Nato defence spending target.

And in a bid to save face her defence minister Ursula von der Leyen hinted Germany could ask for the two percent target to be lowered at the next Nato summit.

Mrs Merkel had pledged to meet the Nato spending goal of two percent of GDP on defence a Bundeswehr, German armed forces, conference, after a dressing down from US President Donald Trump.

However Mrs von der Leyen admitted Germany would not make the 2024 deadline it agreed to at the Nato summit in Wales in 2014.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/95 ... -trump-usa


Fuck You, Germany. You're on your own.

Only five countries meet the Nato target for defence spending of 2 percent of GDP: the US with 3.57 percent, Greece at 2.36 percent, the UK with 2.12 percent and Estonia with 2.08 percent.

Poland closely trails with 1.99 percent, with Germany dwindling at 17th out of the 28 member nations with 1.24 percent GDP spent on defence.

[Ibanez]

Btw, the irony of a country like Germany begging us to stay in agreements like Paris and Iran but failing to live p to it's own agreement in NATO is too much.

[andy7171]

Low-brow move by the Manhattan Hillbilly.

I believe the NATO 2% has to be put in context. They likely spend a similar percentage as the US for readiness, training and operations. America spends more deploying our 'special interests' (nod-nod, wink-wink), and that's what NATO is pretty much all about. It begins with a B and ends with a 61. We're spending a lot on that.

And, a lot on 'overseas contingency operations,' R&D and procurement <---- BINGO!

We want them to spend more 'procure-ing' our stuff. We make some good stuff.

It's so good to see Cap'n Cat every now and again.

[houndawg]

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

tattoo to cid's mr. roarke.

[houndawg]

It must be painful for Merkel to deal with a buffoon like Trump. The woman is a PhD Physicist. I didn't realize that until I heard something on NPR on it recently. But the woman is smart. And now when dealing with the United States she has to deal with the absurdity that is Donald Trump.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... chancellor

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

*hordes

[houndawg]

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

Do you not think we want the distribution of presence we have by virtue of the existence of NATO?

we have 800 bases overseas.

[SDHornet]

Yup, she's so smart that she let the Muslin hoards in by the thousands...brilliant move.

*hordes

*whores

[CID1990]

Here's what happens when you give out welfare to people (hint: countries are people... like corporations)

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la- ... story.html

It is time to cut NATO loose. We can maintain strategic ties with our true allies in the region like Poland and the Czech Republic, but the days of footing the bill for the defense of Europe needs to come to an end.

[Pwns]

Omigawd Germany is reneging on an agreement? What a fascist Trumpist thing to do. How can we ever trust them again?