Merkel crying a disingenuous river

[spencer rifle]

"Wait - what do you mean we have to pay more for NATO? That would take money away for our social programs, including importing more adult male 'refugee' 'children' to our country. This socialist utopia isn't going to pay for itself. We'll just take that money out of your pocket, and mock you for it."

 

[OakRiver]

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.

A closer approximation would be;
- someone picks fight with neighbors
- police get called to break up fight and keep the peace
- one party asks for police protection because of a serious threat to them or their property
- same person doesn't pay their taxes
- gets upset when asked to pay what is owed

 

[Alamo]

NATO allies have agreed to fund military spending at 2% for decades, and have a long history of dodging that goal. Germany, probably the richest NATO nation after the US, took a military vacation on our dime after the fall of The Wall and hasn't met the 2% goal since. An "agreement" in 2006 (15 years after they last met goal) that they still hadn't met by 2014 isn't much of an agreement. The fact that they got the previous president (who took pains to adopt policies that were to the detriment if the US and the western world), to stretch it out to 2024 just makes a further mockery of the goal. President Trump is correct to call BS on this, as well as a number of other policies adopted by the previous administration. Merkel turned this around backwards -- the case is that the US cannot depend on Germany (and several others), and Trump committed the diplomatic gaffe of saying the truth out loud. Long overdue and good on him.

 

[IndyDave1776]

NATO allies have agreed to fund military spending at 2% for decades, and have a long history of dodging that goal. Germany, probably the richest NATO nation after the US, took a military vacation on our dime after the fall of The Wall and hasn't met the 2% goal since. An "agreement" in 2006 (15 years after they last met goal) that they still hadn't met by 2014 isn't much of an agreement. The fact that they got the previous president (who took pains to adopt policies that were to the detriment if the US and the western world), to stretch it out to 2024 just makes a further mockery of the goal. President Trump is correct to call BS on this, as well as a number of other policies adopted by the previous administration. Merkel turned this around backwards -- the case is that the US cannot depend on Germany (and several others), and Trump committed the diplomatic gaffe of saying the truth out loud. Long overdue and good on him.

 

[OakRiver]

 

[BugI02]

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)

View attachment 56203

 

[BugI02]

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

Well, 46.1% of voting Americans no longer agree with that, and I bet not much over 50% agreed at the time the deal was made

The US can change its mind just like it changes Presidents

 

[BugI02]

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."

You mean the agreed-upon 2% policy established in 2006, that we shouldn't disregard a policy agreed upon between the other members of NATO and President Bush?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You mean the agreed-upon 2% policy established in 2006, that we shouldn't disregard a policy agreed upon between the other members of NATO and President Bush?

lol

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
Tragen Sie Ihre eigene Last, Brunhilde.
Harleyrider??? Is that you???

LOL. DARN YOU, rep nazis!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Strategically thinking, perhaps we'd be better served to start a new coalition with the folks who really want our help and are willing to ante up for it. Move out of Germany and into Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Belarus, the Ukraine . . .