Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel
100 replies, posted
[quote]While the figure presented to the Germans was not revealed by either side, Nato countries pledged in 2014 to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence, something only a handful of nations – including the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia – currently do.
But the bill has been backdated even further to 2002, the year Mrs Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, pledged to spend more on defence.
Mr Trump reportedly instructed aides to calculate how much German spending fell below two per cent over the past 12 years, then added interest. [/quote]
so asking them to actually pay what they pledged is somehow wrong? okay.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't read thread" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52015205]The invoice was fake, not the official estimates based on their shortcomings.
[editline]26th March 2017[/editline]
Doesn't really do much to destabilize relations because Germany needs us.[/QUOTE]
Lol so it's okay because he used a fake invoice? No, you mong, that just shows how much of a child Trump is.
remember this
[t]http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trumps_pence01112017getty.jpg?itok=wERFFPvK[/t]
his business plans that he was tots gonna be independent from
[t]http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/56/35/21/12178502/3/1024x1024.jpg[/t]
Personally, I think Trump pooping his pants and crying like a giant six foot tall baby while sucking his thumb during the last UN meeting was the perfect childish fuck you. All you guys are just overreacting.
[QUOTE=FrankPetrov;52015082]Well with only 1 source reporting it and every other site using independent as their source, i find this hard to believe. I mean hey, if germany owes nato money, pay up. Wanna prove you don't owe it, bring out the proof.[/QUOTE]
The Sunday Times in the UK has a report on it but it's behind a paywall
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52015023]Please tell me this isn't true and this is secretly an Onion article.[/QUOTE]
Oh you don't know? The Giant Hadron Collider malfunctioned and shifted the entire world into the Onion continuum last November.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52015105]I actually like this move. It's a big childish fuck you to Germany. They committed to spending 2%, and they should. We aren't here to pay for Europe's defense.[/QUOTE]
If the American government keeps acting like this expect to face severe economic consequences and a huge shunning from the rest of the world.
I hate the stereotype of the dumb American, but currently your government is doing it's best to reinforce it.
[QUOTE=FrankPetrov;52015082]Well with only 1 source reporting it and every other site using independent as their source, i find this hard to believe. I mean hey, if germany owes nato money, pay up. Wanna prove you don't owe it, bring out the proof.[/QUOTE]
Owe? We don't owe the NATO, or especially the US, any of that money.
It's a recommended percentage that should be spent on the military, if you don't you don't owe it.
Also it's not even money we'd give to other them. The 2% just mean that countries spend 2% of their GDP on the military, the money goes to the arms industry and other places, but not to the governments of other countries or to the NATO.
[QUOTE=Firewarrior;52015291]The 2% just mean that countries spend 2% of their GDP on the military, the money goes to the arms industry and other places, but not to the governments of other countries or to the NATO.[/QUOTE]
And because most NATO countries aren't contributing the recommended amount, the US has to pick up the slack.
I don't like Trump and this gesture is childish, but it sure seems like European NATO members want to spend money on their own interests instead of defense, yet simultaneously expect us to protect them unconditionally. Germany doesn't owe us a thing but if they're going to ignore the 'mutual' in mutual defense, they have no right to complain when Trump threatens to do likewise.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52015089]Like I said, I'm very sure he'll be impeached and convicted of Treason.[B] If it's true that Michael Flynn has been in FBI protective custody for the last week, it may well be that they flipped him and he made a deal to testify. [/B]Watching this gigantic imbecile be thrown in prison for life will be cathartic.[/QUOTE]
Where did you hear this? I can't find any news sources on it.
A contract has been signed so pay your contribution, if not don't expect to receive any service in the near future. Good luck with that Russian agression EU.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52015329]And because most NATO countries aren't contributing the recommended amount, the US has to pick up the slack.
I don't like Trump and this gesture is childish, but it sure seems like European NATO members want to spend money on their own interests instead of defense, yet simultaneously expect us to protect them unconditionally. Germany doesn't owe us a thing but if they're going to ignore the 'mutual' in mutual defense, they have no right to complain when Trump threatens to do likewise.[/QUOTE]
We're cutting services in the US so we can spend even more than the ludicrous amount we already spend on defense. Why are we only whining about this?
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;52015343]A contract has been signed so pay your contribution, if not don't expect to receive any service in the near future. Good luck with that Russian agression EU.[/QUOTE]
Another who doesn't know the agreement.
You're supposed to pay 2% by 2024.
The US might be spending more, but are we actually getting as much as other countries are out of our dollars? Our military spending is incredibly wasteful - I know at one point we were buying more M1s of the same type that we were simultaneously surplussing, thanks to Congress using it as a jobs program.
I suspect that, if we adjusted for waste, price-gouging and inefficiency, we would be barely meeting the 2% goal ourselves.
I bet he used something like FREEINVOICEGENERATOR.COM
[QUOTE=Canary;52015130]Why are only some countries spending that %2? including Greece who ave no money there's no fucking excuse for France and Germany to ignore it seeing as their shit in the past is why we have this pact in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Uh.
NATO is because of the "Damn Russia, you scary" period otherwise known as the Cold War.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;52015375]Another who doesn't know the agreement.
You're supposed to pay 2% by 2024.[/QUOTE]
I bet not even Trump knows that.
This is genuinely unbelievable. It's like a scene from a cartoon, but it's real? Handing another world leader an estimated invoice for a defense agreement? Holy fuck
[media]https://twitter.com/IvoHDaalder/status/843105912319565825[/media]
Former US ambassador for NATO, there's more tweets if you want to read.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52015247]Personally, I think Trump pooping his pants and crying like a giant six foot tall baby while sucking his thumb during the last UN meeting was the perfect childish fuck you. All you guys are just overreacting.[/QUOTE]
Oh don't be fucking ridiculous and blowing this out of proportion like that, that's just uncalled for.
No fucking way Trump is six foot tall.
Why should they, it's not France and the UK doesn't have nuclear weapons which would be plenty of deterrent I imagine if the US left.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52015329]And because most NATO countries aren't contributing the recommended amount, the US has to pick up the slack.
I don't like Trump and this gesture is childish, but it sure seems like European NATO members want to spend money on their own interests instead of defense, yet simultaneously expect us to protect them unconditionally. Germany doesn't owe us a thing but if they're going to ignore the 'mutual' in mutual defense, they have no right to complain when Trump threatens to do likewise.[/QUOTE]
This argument kinda hinges on the notion that the US spends a lot to pick up the slack isn't just a post-rationalization of the US' military budget. Would the US really accept a lowering of its own power projection capabilities because Denmark started paying more? I doubt it - the US likes its aircraft carriers, and I doubt very much that they would want to rely on its allies for stuff like that. The US is free to lower its military budget, and if the theory is correct, its NATO allies would increase their spending correspondingly.
Personally I think Denmark has other, much better uses for its money right now - I don't think we should've signed those agreements, but either way I'm happy that they're non-binding. If a NATO ally were attacked, I have no doubt that Denmark would do its part, and I think that's the substantial part of the question.
I'm genuinely wondering about the legitimacy of this story considering there's no actual images of the invoice, we've only got their word.
was it written in crayon?
Whether he did this or not it should be deeply disconcerting to everyone that trump has so little respect for NATO and this attitude towards NATO members makes it look like he has [I]no fucking clue[/I] just how hugely important NATO is to the United States strategically and economically, as well as a large part of the world
There's some good [url=https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4undy0/trump_doubles_down_on_nato_comments_we_have_to/d5rll38/]reddit[/url] [url=https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5oqhuk/does_nato_still_benefit_us_strategic_interests/dclmlcq/]comments[/url] that sum most of it up better than I ever could
[QUOTE=catbarf;52015329]And because most NATO countries aren't contributing the recommended amount, the US has to pick up the slack.
I don't like Trump and this gesture is childish, but it sure seems like European NATO members want to spend money on their own interests instead of defense, yet simultaneously expect us to protect them unconditionally. Germany doesn't owe us a thing but if they're going to ignore the 'mutual' in mutual defense, they have no right to complain when Trump threatens to do likewise.[/QUOTE]
how does GDP spending translate to military power? If one country has enough tanks, planes, and importantly, troops to meet its NATO obligations why do they need to spend 2% every year on top of that?
like we already have this problem in the US where we have piles of unused tanks simply because we have congressmen ordering more tanks even as the military has all the tanks they could ever need
[QUOTE=Sableye;52017276]how does GDP spending translate to military power? If one country has enough tanks, planes, and importantly, troops to meet its NATO obligations why do they need to spend 2% every year on top of that?
like we already have this problem in the US where we have piles of unused tanks simply because we have congressmen ordering more tanks even as the military has all the tanks they could ever need[/QUOTE]
Most military expenditures are on operations cost. Fuel, munitions, maintenance, salaries. Even in peacetime, you're using stuff up during training, if you want good fighting capability. New stuff is generally bought at a rate that replaces the stuff that's so old it's breaking down constantly. Witness: despite buying the B-1 and B-2, there are still B-52s from before Vietnam in service, and they're expected to stay in use until the B-21 enters service.
The US does waste a [I]lot[/I] of money on unneeded crap (like your Abrams example), but the general concept of "spend a certain amount to maintain a certain quality standing military" is sound.
Incidentally, a lot of our waste comes from misguided efforts to trim costs. Over several Congresses, the F-22 fleet went from a planned 750+ to just under 200 - which ballooned the per-unit cost, and ultimately cost more since it forced older aircraft to remain in service.
Best way Trump can do this is to try to negotiate NATO's plan in incorporating funding into intelligence and counter-intelligence. Right now Russia is a paper tiger but it (and other subversive elements) are using intelligence and propaganda to destabilize NATO to a very, very, large degree.
I think Germany would be all for it, imho.
NATO has been destabilizing for a long time before the fall of the soviet union and even now it hasn't got any purpose beyond being an alliance.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52015213]What happens when Germany decides it had enough of Trump's shit and washes their hands of him, stability or no stability?[/QUOTE]
Won't happen (with our current political trajectory). "Realpolitik" doesn't have negative connotations in German, and applying that implies not escalating international politics over personal matters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.