Germany Rejects Trump's Claims It Owes NATO and U.S. "Vast Sums"

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

sangha said:
You have been reduced to arguing that Trump did not lie and, besides, all politicians lie.

And you have a new sense of acceptance for lies that was absent when Obama was President

You seem to fixate, as always, on the fragment instead of the whole.

Germany is not spending 2% of their GDP on defense.

Trump called than on it.

He may not have been diplomatically precise as you seem bent on demanding, but he's citing the shortfall. It's been going on for decades. It's high time somebody said something.

You seem to be making the same mistake that people make when they dissect a parable into the component words and then proceed to pick it apart. Did you do this with Clinton and Obama?

The message is that the European nations need to spend more on the defense of their own homes. THAT is what you should be addressing.

Instead, you start to attack the phrasing and syntax. EVERY POLITICIAN LIES.

In the case of Trump, he makes statement to draw attention. He's excellent at this. He seems to have gotten your attention.

I'm sure as he moves forward, he'll gain the artful dodger technique of weaving plausible deniability into every thing he says, as he says it, as Obama did. That will be a more artful and considered way of lying gained with practice and indicative of the intent to deceive and backtrack.

Trump got better and better at campaigning as the campaign wore on. He'll get better and better at governing as he does it and also better at the high art of non speak that you seem to like.

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

American said:
Hell he would love millions of refugees to enter the US and get everything for free. What do you expect? Leftwingers have some crazy ideas.

I've never really understood the idea of "open borders" with no standards for the immigrants to meet.

If we want people to enter our country, it seems like we should be looking for the folks that will make our national community better or stronger.

Those on the left seem consumed with the idea of destroying what is and completely UNconcerned with what the country may become as the result of their prescription.

On a bit of a satiric side note, the idea of the Islamic terror immigrant seems to be making the run of the mill Central American immigrant pretty benign.

Suddenly, now, to be a deportable, the undocumented immigrant from Central American, you need to be a rapist. The NOW crowd is befuddled by this. They have to pick which irrational, reflexive response they will assert.

What's an ideologue to do?

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

justabubba said:
isn't this very thread about how germany is not spending its money the way we would approve

I thought it was about not paying for the protection we provide.

Your response seems to disprove the idea that we are exerting imperial control over Germany.

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

JasperL said:
I love it - it's not fair to pay attention to Trump's lies - you have to discern the deeper message that lies underneath those lies! :lamo

I see. Your preference is to ignore the message and instead make crap up and pretend that is what is important.

Alrighty, then!

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

iguanaman said:
Since when does money trump the security of our allies and ourselves? The joke about the whole phony issue is Trumps insistence that we ramp up our military spending when we already spend more than the top 7 countries combined. This is not about money it is about the Trump Administration weakening NATO by Putin's command. Only a blind partisan would not see that.

That devious Trump!

Demanding that the allies pay more so the outcome will be less.

You need to proof read your posts for logic before you hit the button to reply.

Oh, wait...

Was your post sarcasm? You need to label these for me so I'll know.

Manc Skipper · Mar 25, 2017

code1211 said:
You seem to fixate, as always, on the fragment instead of the whole.

Germany is not spending 2% of their GDP on defense.

Trump called than on it.

He may not have been diplomatically precise as you seem bent on demanding, but he's citing the shortfall. It's been going on for decades. It's high time somebody said something.

You seem to be making the same mistake that people make when they dissect a parable into the component words and then proceed to pick it apart. Did you do this with Clinton and Obama?

The message is that the European nations need to spend more on the defense of their own homes. THAT is what you should be addressing.

Instead, you start to attack the phrasing and syntax. EVERY POLITICIAN LIES.

In the case of Trump, he makes statement to draw attention. He's excellent at this. He seems to have gotten your attention. Trump kicks an open door and takes credit.

I'm sure as he moves forward, he'll gain the artful dodger technique of weaving plausible deniability into every thing he says, as he says it, as Obama did. That will be a more artful and considered way of lying gained with practice and indicative of the intent to deceive and backtrack.

Trump got better and better at campaigning as the campaign wore on. He'll get better and better at governing as he does it and also better at the high art of non speak that you seem to like.

Obama had already called them on it last year, and got agreement that all the members would aim for compliance by a set date, which happens to be 2024.

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
Obama had already called them on it last year, and got agreement that all the members would aim for compliance by a set date, which happens to be 2024.

Just think, if he'd caught this on his own in his first year, they'd already be there.

I suppose it's good that he listened to Trump and jumped on the bandwagon.

Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight - POLITICO
<snip>
President Barack Obama echoed President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, signaling to America’s NATO allies that if Greece can pay its fair share even during an economic crisis, so can the other members of the alliance.
<snip>

Manc Skipper · Mar 25, 2017

code1211 said:
Just think, if he'd caught this on his own in his first year, they'd already be there.

I suppose it's good that he listened to Trump and jumped on the bandwagon.

Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight - POLITICO
<snip>
President Barack Obama echoed President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, signaling to America’s NATO allies that if Greece can pay its fair share even during an economic crisis, so can the other members of the alliance.
<snip>

Greece pays it's share because Germany sold them loads of arms during their spendthift period before the world crash, and they're forced to borrow to pay it all off.

joG · Mar 25, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
Greece pays it's share because Germany sold them loads of arms during their spendthift period before the world crash, and they're forced to borrow to pay it all off.

Well, it is true that German companies seem to have bribed Greek officials into buying the weapons they purchased. But that doesn't mean Germany hasn't been free riding to an asocial degree. Even in Berlin responsible politicians are beginning to admit it.

joG · Mar 25, 2017

code1211 said:
Just think, if he'd caught this on his own in his first year, they'd already be there.

I suppose it's good that he listened to Trump and jumped on the bandwagon.

Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight - POLITICO
<snip>
President Barack Obama echoed President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, signaling to America’s NATO allies that if Greece can pay its fair share even during an economic crisis, so can the other members of the alliance.
<snip>

Obama isn't always wrong after all.

Manc Skipper · Mar 25, 2017

joG said:
Well, it is true that German companies seem to have bribed Greek officials into buying the weapons they purchased. But that doesn't mean Germany hasn't been free riding to an asocial degree. Even in Berlin responsible politicians are beginning to admit it.

Which brings us back to the fact that Obama chided NATO last year to pay their way, and an agreement is already in place. Trump's empty posturing is........hollow.

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
Greece pays it's share because Germany sold them loads of arms during their spendthift period before the world crash, and they're forced to borrow to pay it all off.

Okay. Why isn't Germany paying up?

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

joG said:
Obama isn't always wrong after all.

Well, according to the libs on this board, if he is agreeing with Trump, he must be wrong.

Isn't Trump all wrong all the time?

Jredbaron96 · Mar 25, 2017

code1211 said:
Okay. That's fine and dandy.

If they want to be in the club, however, they need to pay their dues. The cost of maintaining NATO is a defined amount and the share that the French should be paying is a defined amount. They are delighted to claim world leadership, but when it comes time to pay the piper, they disappear. They're the guy that hits the can when the waiter drops the check on the table.

Your knowledge of military history is as shallow as your understanding of the modern situation. What you seem to forget as well is that while all of the EU's defense spending goes to Europe, while only a fraction of the US military budget goes into it's European commitment.

The Germans are not anti war. History tells us that the Germans not at all war averse.

The Germans certainly anti-war. Two lost world wars and decades of the West Germany government taking the blame for the Holocaust have certainly turned Germany away from militarism. There's a reason Germans are among the least patriotic people in the world.

The French have a habit of grasping at a single answer to this war question and there isn't one. The two great threats of the day are the invasion by Russia and the terror from the Middle East.

The notion that the French would nuke the invading enemy as the tanks cross their border or the terrorists blow up their publishers is ridiculous.

Maginot Line - World War II - HISTORY.com

Publishers being killed and France itself being invaded by vast tank and mechanized armies are too vastly different situations. I should've have to explain that to you. The Maginot Line was precisely intended to free up French forces for offensive maneuvers, since the French realized that being outnumbered by the Germans meant they couldn't divert their limited reserves to always be on the defense.

code1211 · Mar 25, 2017

Jredbaron96 said:
Your knowledge of military history is as shallow as your understanding of the modern situation. What you seem to forget as well is that while all of the EU's defense spending goes to Europe, while only a fraction of the US military budget goes into it's European commitment.

The Germans certainly anti-war. Two lost world wars and decades of the West Germany government taking the blame for the Holocaust have certainly turned Germany away from militarism. There's a reason Germans are among the least patriotic people in the world.

Publishers being killed and France itself being invaded by vast tank and mechanized armies are too vastly different situations. I should've have to explain that to you. The Maginot Line was precisely intended to free up French forces for offensive maneuvers, since the French realized that being outnumbered by the Germans meant they couldn't divert their limited reserves to always be on the defense.

At the time of the Blitz invasion of France, the French had more tanks than the Germans.

Are you really putting yourself forward as a military historian?

Jredbaron96 · Mar 25, 2017

code1211 said:
At the time of the Blitz invasion of France, the French had more tanks than the Germans.

Are you really putting yourself forward as a military historian?

Irrelevant. The French had only organized a few formations of armor, leaving the rest of their tanks (the majority of which were old and considered outdated) in infantry support roles they were ill-suited for due to a lack of radios or effective tank doctrine. All tactical advantages the French had in terms of armor and firepower was either way rendered moot by Manstein's sickle cut.

Buck Naked · Mar 25, 2017

Can anyone cite the specific member country, ratified article or provision within the North Atlantic Treaty that requires the member state to maintain a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence?

Here is the full text of the North Atlantic Treaty,

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf

Then when you realise there is no Article or Provision requiring member States to maintain a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defence, and that Donald Trump has no idea what he’s spouting about upon the subject, please explain why you felt it necessary to comment on the subject for which you clearly have no understanding other than to defend the ignorance of Donald Trump comments?

And to save you some time and myself from having to respond to more ignorance, nothing within the RIGA, WALES, or WARSAW summit is binding. So please don’t cite anything from those summits as nothing from those summits are binding as part of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Rogue Valley · Mar 25, 2017

Buck naked said:
Can anyone cite the specific member country, ratified article or provision within the North Atlantic Treaty that requires the member state to maintain a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence?

Yes. This '2% of GDP on military spending' provision was first agreed upon at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales.

Wales Summit Declaration

The relevant spending requirement is covered in Point 14...

14.
We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed. A strong defence industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:

Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
■ halt any decline in defence expenditure;
■ aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
■ aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.

All Allies will:
■ ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
■ ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.

Although I agree that NATO nations should meet the 2%/GDP figure asap, Trump is lying about this.

Prior to the 2014 Wales NATO Summit, all NATO nations were only "encouraged" to spend 2%/GDP on their military. But it was not required.

The 2014 Wales NATO Summit initiated the 2%/GDP requirement but ... all NATO nations have until 2024 to meet the 2%/GDP military spending requirement.

Buck Naked · Mar 25, 2017

Rogue Valley said:
Yes. This '2% of GDP on military spending' provision was first agreed upon at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales.

Wales Summit Declaration

The relevant spending requirement is covered in Point 14...

Although I agree that NATO nations should meet the 2%/GDP figure asap, Trump is lying about this.

Prior to the 2014 Wales NATO Summit, all NATO nations were only "encouraged" to spend 2%/GDP on their military. But it was not required.

The 2014 Wales NATO Summit initiated the 2%/GDP requirement but ... all NATO nations have until 2024 to meet the 2%/GDP military spending requirement.

With all due respect, everything you have stated is correct except that the 2% GDP requirement is simply nothing more than a pledge. The 2% GDP proposal is not binding, as is nothing within the WALES Summit and no 2% GDP mandatory requirement will go into effect in 2024. The North Atlantic Treaty is the only text, which has been ratified by each Member State’s Government that is binding. Simply stated, there is no binding 2% GDP requirement within the treaty, and as the 2008 crises’ realistically demonstrated, there never will be.

Furthermore, there are many other national policies and spending that improve national security and compliment NATO principles that don’t fall under GDP spending on National Defence which should be taken into account if the debate is to fairly continue about Member States’ GDP spending on National Defence.

"NATO’s allies had previously, in 2006, agreed to commit to a minimum of 2% of their GDP to spending on defence. This is a guideline and not a binding commitment.”

, Chapter 3

"Maintaining or achieving the 2% target as stated in the declaration is aspirational and it is not a binding commitment.”

, Chapter 3

To download the full pdf report,
NATO Wales Summit 2014: outcomes - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

code1211 · Mar 26, 2017

Jredbaron96 said:
Irrelevant. The French had only organized a few formations of armor, leaving the rest of their tanks (the majority of which were old and considered outdated) in infantry support roles they were ill-suited for due to a lack of radios or effective tank doctrine. All tactical advantages the French had in terms of armor and firepower was either way rendered moot by Manstein's sickle cut.

The post to which I responded:

"Your knowledge of military history is as shallow as your understanding of the modern situation. What you seem to forget as well is that while all of the EU's defense spending goes to Europe, while only a fraction of the US military budget goes into it's European commitment.

The Germans certainly anti-war. Two lost world wars and decades of the West Germany government taking the blame for the Holocaust have certainly turned Germany away from militarism. There's a reason Germans are among the least patriotic people in the world.

Publishers being killed and France itself being invaded by vast tank and mechanized armies are too vastly different situations. I should've have to explain that to you. The Maginot Line was precisely intended to free up French forces for offensive maneuvers, since the French realized that being outnumbered by the Germans meant they couldn't divert their limited reserves to always be on the defense."

We are talking about the lack of spending by the NATO Nations to defend themselves today. You seemed to be presenting historical examples of the French defending themselves. The ongoing warfare of the French and the British have been a staple in history and literature for centuries. The US likely would not exist if the French did not like to war with the Brits. Franklin bled the French white to get money for the revolutionaries.

I would have thought that as an expert on French military history, you'd have know this.

You say the Germans are anti war. References in history from the Roman Empire forward seem to undermine this opinion.

The pre-WW2 French being strategically lacking and not spending enough money are two very different things. Money don't fix stupid.

Every conquering army in history has employed superior leadership, superior technology or both. The French were on the short end of both during the Blitz.

If anything, the French experience in WW2 should motivate them to be preparing for the next war. History shows very clearly that the french Soldier is brave and heroic while their leadership is backward and indecisive. Napoleon being the exception about half of the time.

Perhaps the French think they are preparing. Why spend our own money if the Yanks will spend their money for us?

Jredbaron96 · Mar 26, 2017

code1211 said:
Perhaps the French think they are preparing. Why spend our own money if the Yanks will spend their money for us?

I can't believe you're having a hard time understanding this.

Germany is anti-war today because of the aftermath of the Second World War. It doesn't matter how hardcore Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, or the German Empire were, because none of those exist anymore, and their martial traditions are gone. Militarism is not some innate trait found within certain people. It's a cultural and political mindset that can be extinguished given the proper circumstances, which is exactly what happened. You're studying history but completely failing to understand the ramifications and consequences associated with it.

I've already explained why the French don't spend as much of their money on conventional forces as they do as other states; because they highly emphasize their nuclear deterrent. Why you're having difficulty grasping this concept is beyond me.

code1211 · Mar 26, 2017

Jredbaron96 said:
I can't believe you're having a hard time understanding this.

Germany is anti-war today because of the aftermath of the Second World War. It doesn't matter how hardcore Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, or the German Empire were, because none of those exist anymore, and their martial traditions are gone. Militarism is not some innate trait found within certain people. It's a cultural and political mindset that can be extinguished given the proper circumstances, which is exactly what happened. You're studying history but completely failing to understand the ramifications and consequences associated with it.

I've already explained why the French don't spend as much of their money on conventional forces as they do as other states; because they highly emphasize their nuclear deterrent. Why you're having difficulty grasping this concept is beyond me.

The German predilection for being warlike has endured, as you note, across the centuries and across various governments.

You now proclaim them to be doves due to the latest century and the latest governmental incarnation. Alrighty, then!

The French have made decisions on their own defense in the past that have proven to be, shall we say, ill advised. That they are doing so again now seems to be your support of their current stupidity. Again: Alrighty, then!

In both cases, these countries have abandoned their responsibilities to their citizens to defend them. The Russians don't seem to be particularly forgiving of stupidity on the part of their neighbors.

The Europeans don't seem to be particularly observant of the integrity of the Americans when it comes to honoring their commitments to protect foreign nations under attack. Ask the Ukrainians how their reliance on an agreement with the US is working out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Jredbaron96 · Mar 26, 2017

code1211 said:
The German predilection for being warlike has endured, as you note, across the centuries and across various governments.

Hardly. The Germanic tribes were not unique in their warrior ways, so were the Celts, the Britons, the Gauls, the Goths, the Etruscans, the Macedonians. The Germans were not unique in that. The Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire reduced Germany to a backwater state in Europe.

Since you seem so fond of Teutonic history, then surely you know that Germany as we know it today didn't truly exist until 1871, and the legacy of German nationalism resulted in two lost global conflicts and internal ruin.

You now proclaim them to be doves due to the latest century and the latest governmental incarnation. Alrighty, then!

If you bothered to actually learn or read a book you might learn something.

The French have made decisions on their own defense in the past that have proven to be, shall we say, ill advised. That they are doing so again now seems to be your support of their current stupidity. Again: Alrighty, then!

"Hurr dur the frenchi surrended in ww2 so they must suck at military stuff"

That's how you sound. Imagine listening to that all day.

In both cases, these countries have abandoned their responsibilities to their citizens to defend them. The Russians don't seem to be particularly forgiving of stupidity on the part of their neighbors.

Right, the French Armed Forces and the Bundeswehr don't exist. I'll be sure to tell my buddies in both they can go ahead and drop their weapons and go home. After all, with Obama out of office, we're going to be friends with Russia now, right?

Buck Naked · Mar 26, 2017

OpportunityCost said:
A businessman will see abrogation of a Treaty as similar to failure to live up to the terms of a contract.

Perhaps that "businessman" hasn't read the North Atlantic Treaty and doesn't understand what he's slobbering about.

Anyway, what are you referring too? The North Atlantic Treaty contains no Article calling for members to maintain a 2% spending of GDP on National Defense. Please read the Treaty. And the RIGA and WALES Summits were nothing more than politicians making non-binding pledges and promises. I repeat, the WALES and RIGA Summits are not contractual nor part of the North Atlantic Treaty. The summits are nothing more than meetings which is a far cry from contractual documents or signed and ratified Treaty provisions.

OpportunityCost said:
Germany made an agreement, in the real world, Germany would owe some money. Not just piddle **** around and say they will try harder.

OpportunityCost said:
Germany made an agreement they didn't live up to. Per that agreement, they are in arrears in their contribution to NATO funding.

Again, what are you talking about? Are you claiming "Germany would owe some money” to itself? Do you realise the 2% of GDP on defense spending would be on the German’s military apparatus, not some sort of payment to NATO?

And Furthermore, the only time in NATO's history where Article 5 (which is the entire purpose of the NATO) has been revoked was after 911, which Germany abided by with loss of treasure and lives.

OpportunityCost · Mar 26, 2017

Buck naked said:
Perhaps that "businessman" hasn't read the North Atlantic Treaty and doesn't understand what he's slobbering about.

Anyway, what are you referring too? The North Atlantic Treaty contains no Article calling for members to maintain a 2% spending of GDP on National Defense. Please read the Treaty. And the RIGA and WALES Summits were nothing more than politicians making non-binding pledges and promises. I repeat, the WALES and RIGA Summits are not contractual nor part of the North Atlantic Treaty. The summits are nothing more than meetings which is a far cry from contractual documents or signed and ratified Treaty provisions.

Again, what are you talking about? Are you claiming "Germany would owe some money” to itself? Do you realise the 2% of GDP on defense spending would be on the German’s military apparatus, not some sort of payment to NATO?

And Furthermore, the only time in NATO's history where Article 5 (which is the entire purpose of the NATO) has been revoked was after 911, which Germany abided by with loss of treasure and lives.

So a country makes an agreement and they should not live up to it? Why are so many of you interested in paying more money to NATO when all you do is crab and bitch about defense spending? That's confusing, but I guess hating Trump overrides all other concerns and principles.

Germany Rejects Trump's Claims It Owes NATO and U.S. "Vast Sums"

code1211

code1211

code1211

code1211

code1211

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

code1211

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

joG

joG

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

code1211

code1211

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

code1211

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Buck Naked

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Buck Naked

code1211

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

code1211

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10

Buck Naked

OpportunityCost