Merkel crying a disingenuous river

[IndyDave1776]

I certainly understand the invective about how America subsidizes other countries. I share some of it.

At the same time, I also recall a different trope. Something something hanging together something hanging separately.

That addresses a mutual commitment for mutual aid, not one party riding piggyback on the other, which is what NATO has become, particularly in terms of those like Germany who are not unable to meet their commitment, but rather simply choose not to do so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

?? I thought the discussion was about telling Merkel where to get off, for complaining about Germany having to pay it's share of NATO dues?

But since you asked, if it wasn't for putin behaving a little like a certain german back in 1938 threatening and annexing parts of other countries, I might consider it.

How many people do you let live in your home, and allow them the ability to tell you where to "get off," and admonish you about how much you should be paying for something?

Kut (bets not many)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah - tell the Red Passport Boys the swamp is just fine. They can come home, join La Resistance and leak sxxt to the media with their buds...

So wait, is it leaks, or fake news?

 

[IndyDave1776]

How many people do you let live in your home, and allow them the ability to tell you where to "get off," and admonish you about how much you should be paying for something?

Kut (bets not many)

Let's see...

First and foremost, we have every right to tell them that they should be paying what they agreed to pay to meet the terms established when Germany signed on to join NATO.

If they have a problem with the presence of our military, we should do exactly what we did when the Philippines decided they didn't want us in Subic Bay, specifically, move out AFTER destroying everything of value that we built there. Further, we should let Germany take responsibility for their own defense rather than it being done on our dime. Problem solved.

After that, then tell Merkel to do something anatomically impossible and to see how the pattern of economically dominating Europe goes for her after that.

 

[jamil]

How many people do you let live in your home, and allow them the ability to tell you where to "get off," and admonish you about how much you should be paying for something?

Kut (bets not many)

Isn't 2% of GDP a requirement for nato?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Isn't 2% of GDP a requirement for nato?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

How many people do you let live in your home, and allow them the ability to tell you where to "get off," and admonish you about how much you should be paying for something?

Kut (bets not many)

I have one for every war I lost.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Isn't 2% of GDP a requirement for nato?

Yes, by 2024.

 

[oldpink]

How many people do you let live in your home, and allow them the ability to tell you where to "get off," and admonish you about how much you should be paying for something?

Kut (bets not many)

Uh, we're there much more for Germany's benefit than ours, and they've been freeloading while we've footed the huge majority of the NATO bill for decades now.
Oh, and I haven't forgotten all the **** we were taking from these western European utopias, Germany especially, throughout the 1980s, when we had the temerity to respond to Soviet aggression.
Excuse me if I find it impossible to find a shred of urge to treat them delicately.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Uh, we're there much more for Germany's benefit than ours, and they've been freeloading while we've footed the huge majority of the NATO bill for decades now.
Oh, and I haven't forgotten all the **** we were taking from these western European utopias, Germany especially, throughout the 1980s, when we had the temerity to respond to Soviet aggression.
Excuse me if I find it impossible to find a shred of urge to treat them delicately.

That is clearly open to debate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, by 2024.

Wait a minute. They agreed to 2% in 2006. They reiterated this agreement in 2014, at which time those failing to meet the already effective standard agreed to get into compliance by 2024.

Kut, if you stopped me for speeding, and I agreed to get my right foot under control by, say 2032, would you accept that as anything between good enough and a defensible standard?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Uh, we're there much more for Germany's benefit than ours, and they've been freeloading while we've footed the huge majority of the NATO bill for decades now.
Oh, and I haven't forgotten all the **** we were taking from these western European utopias, Germany especially, throughout the 1980s, when we had the temerity to respond to Soviet aggression.
Excuse me if I find it impossible to find a shred of urge to treat them delicately.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wait a minute. They agreed to 2% in 2006. They reiterated this agreement in 2014, at which time those failing to meet the already effective standard agreed to get into compliance by 2024.

Kut, if you stopped me for speeding, and I agreed to get my right foot under control by, say 2032, would you accept that as anything between good enough and a defensible standard?

No, I would not. The problem is, the the United States DID agree to the 2024 compliance timeline.

 

[amboy49]

No, I would not. The problem is, the the United States DID agree to the 2024 compliance timeline.

I dont believe that that was under the Trump administration. Perhaps Merkel is longing for the foreign policy of the previous administration. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[churchmouse]

I dont believe that that was under the Trump administration. Perhaps Merkel is longing for the foreign policy of the previous administration. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I believe you are on point.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I dont believe that that was under the Trump administration. Perhaps Merkel is longing for the foreign policy of the previous administration. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, you're right... But one would question the logic of a president who sought to disregard an already agreed upon policy, when it comes to dealing with allies. It creates a distrust of the American system, if agreements are contingent upon whomever is sitting in the WH. And please note I said "allies."

 

[churchmouse]

No, you're right... But one would question the logic of a president who sought to disregard an already agreed upon policy, when it comes to dealing with allies. It creates a distrust of the American system, if agreements are contingent upon whomever is sitting in the WH. And please note I said "allies."

I was showing this to the spouse and it comes to mind he campaigned on this. Not actually sure but we both believe he was saying the NATO bills would be coming due.
Correct me if I am wrong please.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, you're right... But one would question the logic of a president who sought to disregard an already agreed upon policy, when it comes to dealing with allies. It creates a distrust of the American system, if agreements are contingent upon whomever is sitting in the WH. And please note I said "allies."

If staying the course is more important that our well-being, then you are correct. If you are tired of our foreign policy amounting to dropping our pants and grabbing our ankles, then Trump is doing the right thing.

I was showing this to the spouse and it comes to mind he campaigned on this. Not actually sure but we both believe he was saying the NATO bills would be coming due.
Correct me if I am wrong please.

This is indeed the way I remember it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think simply saying "German Warmonging" guilt probably would suffice... especially when you consider the history of Nazi Germany, and the Middle East. The Nazi's actively supported, and courted, Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed, they were allies. The Wehrmacht had a very colorful army, which could be quite diverse in certain theaters. Nazi Germany had no issue killing white people as quickly as they would anyone else. Is out remembrance of history so bad, that this isn't known?

But still, I'm interested in seeing what Shelby Steele has to say. Anything particular I should seek?

The Nazis' justification for many of their atrocities - the Jewish "Final Solution," the purge of the Gypsies, mental defectives, etc. was based on notions of "Aryan racial purity." Their war allies were allies of convenience - as the Russians discovered. Had the Germans, Japanese and Italians been successful in their attempts to conquer the world, the Nazi notions of racial purity would have surfaced again soon enough.

 

[T.Lex]

That addresses a mutual commitment for mutual aid, not one party riding piggyback on the other, which is what NATO has become, particularly in terms of those like Germany who are not unable to meet their commitment, but rather simply choose not to do so.

Indeed - that's kinda my point.

Merkel didn't say NATO (from what I've read), and didn't imply it. Germany... and the EU... can't count on US support. That's deeper than NATO.

She didn't say, "Can't count on NATO support." This was specific to the US.

We have bilateral relationship outside of NATO. I took that to be her context.