Trump directly scolds NATO allies, says they owe 'massive' sums

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-faces-rougher-reception-nato-eu-meetings-082133129.html

[Zippyjuan]

Winning friends for America across the globe.

[Swordsmyth]

Winning friends for America across the globe.

They are not our friends and have not been for a long time.
They are parasites. Better to cut them off entirely, but I still hope that we may.

[merkelstan]

NATO members parasites?

For paying through the nose to be US vassals? Yankee go home :)

[Swordsmyth]

NATO members parasites?

For paying through the nose to be US vassals? Yankee go home :)

They dump the immense cost of their defense on the U.S. to subsidize their welfare states.

End NATO and we will both be happy.

[merkelstan]

They dump the immense cost of their defense on the U.S. to subsidize their welfare states.

End NATO and we will both be happy.

I guess both your premise and Trump's premise is that the NATO alliance protects European nations from something. Post WWII, that was mostly true, for a while at least. Not post Soviet Union though. The main deception here is calling your/our militaries 'defense', when they have been almost exclusively an offensive tool.

Here's an interesting perspective y'all might not have heard before (10min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFmfwqzWmHk

I'm not saying Friedman's analysis is right or wrong or complete, but at least it presents a geostrategic argument that's historically plausible and reflects the kind of thinking strategists employ. (he's from Stratfor)

So does Europe need the US to defend against Russia - a country with the GDP of the Netherlands? Of course not. But dismantling NATO would A) be ending a government program (which is always hard to do) and B) Call into question other 'protective' US foreign military installations such as in S. Korea, and that might lead to people questioning the need for the quasi-empire itself. e.g. "Why does our military have an African Command in the first place?"

[TheCount]

They dump the immense cost of their defense on the U.S. to subsidize their welfare states.

Bullshit, Americans are just looking for excuses as to why we spend a completely unnecessary amount of money on war.



End NATO and we will both be happy.

Trump cognitive dissonance in effect: NATO is terrible and we shouldn't be in it, which is why we're asking NATO nations to put more money into it to make it even stronger.

[Swordsmyth]

I guess both your premise and Trump's premise is that the NATO alliance protects European nations from something. Post WWII, that was mostly true, for a while at least. Not post Soviet Union though. The main deception here is calling your/our militaries 'defense', when they have been almost exclusively an offensive tool.[/video]

I definitely oppose our foreign adventures. But the European countries would need militaries to defend themselves from eachother or from outsiders if it were not for NATO and PAX Americana.


But dismantling NATO would A) be ending a government program (which is always hard to do) and B) Call into question other 'protective' US foreign military installations such as in S. Korea, and that might lead to people questioning the need for the quasi-empire itself. e.g. "Why does our military have an African Command in the first place?"

This is what needs to be done. No matter how hard and complaining about the Europeans cheating just might get the ball rolling with the public.

And by the way it is Europe (especially the UK) that wants Russia targeted, THEY use the U.S. and our tax money to run their modern Crypto-Empire.
Parasites just like I said.


Bull$#@!, Americans are just looking for excuses as to why we spend a completely unnecessary amount of money on war.

See above





Trump cognitive dissonance in effect: NATO is terrible and we shouldn't be in it, which is why we're asking NATO nations to put more money into it to make it even stronger.

See above, I want NATO ended, I am not yet giving Dump credit for wanting that too but this may be a first step.

[merkelstan]

I definitely oppose our foreign adventures



yeah like jeffrey dahmer's adventures.


https://www.vdare.com/radios/radio-derb-budget-cuckery-healthcare-and-trump-derangement-syndrome-etc?redirect=http://www.vdare.com/radios/radio-derb-budget-cuckery-healthcare-and-trump-derangement-syndrome-etc

interesting stuff

[Swordsmyth]

yeah like jeffrey dahmer's adventures.


https://www.vdare.com/radios/radio-derb-budget-cuckery-healthcare-and-trump-derangement-syndrome-etc?redirect=http://www.vdare.com/radios/radio-derb-budget-cuckery-healthcare-and-trump-derangement-syndrome-etc

interesting stuff

I was using a classic old term, and I oppose going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
We both oppose NATO, why are you so hostile?
If you read many of my other posts you would know I am no fan of Trump.

[oyarde]

I was thinking about billing some of those crappy euro trash Nato countries .

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

They dump the immense cost of their defense on the U.S. to subsidize their welfare states.




Bullshit,...




LOL at the ultra progressive TheCount bristling when somebody criticizes the welfare state.

[nikcers]

LOL at the ultra progressive TheCount bristling when somebody criticizes the welfare state.

LOL ULTRA NEOCON NCL criticizes progressive Thecount for criticizing the military industrial complex welfare state.

[AuH20]

Europe is partially funding 'free' college initiatives on our dime. Time to pay up.

[nikcers]

Europe is partially funding 'free' college initiatives on our dime. Time to pay up.

LOL right, they must of had a lot of leeway when we offered to park our protection inside their country. Ron Paul always argues that we are the invaders, its almost like the Mob offering you protection so you don't get hurt.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL right, they must of had a lot of leeway when we offered to park our protection inside their country. Ron Paul always argues that we are the invaders, its almost like the Mob offering you protection so you don't get hurt.

We have the Astronomical Debt they do not (what percentage of the budget is the DoD?), they are the ones who want their neighbor Russia targeted.
They are parasites.

[nikcers]

We have the Astronomical Debt they do not (what percentage of the budget is the DoD?), they are the ones who want their neighbor Russia targeted.
They are parasites.

The amount of money we spend on NATO is noting compared to our debt. this is a distraction from the problem which is government subsidizing industries like healthcare and food and education through military and fedral loans causing the price to sky rocket. We overspent because there was too much liquidity and people voted for the government programs that cause the problems, they never vote to get rid of the programs creating the debt. You could have us leave NATO and it would do nothing to our debt, you are parroting the distraction narrative.

[Swordsmyth]

The amount of money we spend on NATO is noting compared to our debt. this is a distraction from the problem which is government subsidizing industries like healthcare and food and education through military and fedral loans causing the price to sky rocket. We overspent because there was too much liquidity and people voted for the government programs that cause the problems, they never vote to get rid of the programs creating the debt. You could have us leave NATO and it would do nothing to our debt, you are parroting the distraction narrative.

What percentage of the budget is the DoD?

[nikcers]

What percentage of the budget is the DoD?

Since when do we get compelled by NATO to spend money on the DoD? You're blaming NATO not the Mccains. You know what you are doing.

[Swordsmyth]

Since when do we get compelled by NATO to spend money on the DoD? You're blaming NATO not the Mccains. You know what you are doing.

NATO Gives the McPains the excuse for the global empire that their European Overlords want, Treaty obligations and all that.

[nikcers]

NATO Gives the McPains the excuse for the global empire that their European Overlords want, Treaty obligations and all that.

CONGRESS DEFINES WHAT WE SPEND FUCK YOUR WORLD GOVERNMENT TALKING POINT.

[Swordsmyth]

CONGRESS DEFINES WHAT WE SPEND $#@! YOUR WORLD GOVERNMENT TALKING POINT.

And the Senate brought you NATO, and the Congress will keep pointing to NATO and it's brothers to justify, nay mandate DodD spending.

[nikcers]

And the Senate brought you NATO, and the Congress will keep pointing to NATO and it brothers to justify nay mandate DodD spending.

it wasn't the Ron Pauls that brought you this debt.

[Swordsmyth]

it wasn't the Ron Pauls that brought you this debt.
No, indeed. It was Europe/NATO/The UN/The McPains and their Ilk.

[nikcers]

No, indeed. It was Europe/NATO/The UN/The McPains and their Ilk.

We could always march our troops back here. I am sure my coworkers brother would prefer not to be in Poland, or my other coworkers brother who is going to Syria. I am sure that would help with the debt.

[Swordsmyth]

We could always march our troops back here. I am sure my coworkers brother would prefer not to be in Poland, or my other coworkers brother who is going to Syria. I am sure that would help with the debt.
How much do all those overseas bases cost?
Not to mention a military that is bigger than what we need for our own defense. Or all the other costs that come from NATO.
And we will not be bringing the boys back home so long as we are still a member of NATO.

[nikcers]

How much do all those overseas bases cost?
Not to mention a military that is bigger than what we need for our own defense. Or all the other costs that come from NATO.
And we will not be bringing the boys back home so long as we are still a member of NATO.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in advocating in getting out of entangling alliances and less intervention in other nations affairs and demanding a stop to our government funding other countries defense and then demand other governments to take money away from their citizens and then give to NATO?

[Swordsmyth]

Do you not see the hypocrisy in advocating in getting out of entangling alliances and less intervention in other nations affairs and demanding a stop to our government funding other countries defense and then demand other governments to take money away from their citizens and then give to NATO?

I do not want them to give more money to NATO, I want to use their bad faith and parasitism to end NATO, and then let them decide how much they wish to spend on their own defense.

[nikcers]

I do not want them to give more money to NATO, I want to use their bad faith and parasitism to end NATO, and then let them decide how much they wish to spend on their own defense.
Yeah but that's not even what Trump thinks, Trump thinks that they owe us money, Trump thinks to the victor goes the spoils. I think Rand Paul called it best when he said in the debate that the other people on the stage have a foreign policy that is like a game of risk.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah but that's not even what Trump thinks, Trump thinks that they owe us money, Trump thinks to the victor goes the spoils. I think Rand Paul called it best when he said in the debate that the other people on the stage have a foreign policy that is like a game of risk.

I do not yet give Dump credit for sharing my goal, but he might.
And even if he does not, I believe in political judo, latch on to anything moving your direction and help it along, maybe even farther than it wants.

[Firestarter]

They dump the immense cost of their defense on the U.S. to subsidize their welfare states.They keep telling me that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a "care state" (verzorgingsstaat), and then when I tell that we have thousands of homeless people, nobody listens.

Guess who become rich, when NATO countries increase their military spending... it's the weapons industry.
Bombing for peace is like...: https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/60digf/bombing_for_peace_is_like_fucking_for_virginity/

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, picked up the phone during a meeting with Saudi officials and called the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn A. Hewson over a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Lockheed Martin has a long history of bribing government officials, but don’t worry - Donald Trump has assured us that he’s above corruption…

According to current and former officials this doesn’t raise legal issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/world/middleeast/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-lockheed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2

[Swordsmyth]

They keep telling me that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a "care state" (verzorgingsstaat), and then when I tell that we have thousands of homeless people, nobody listens.

Guess who become rich, when NATO countries increase their military spending... it's the weapons industry.
Bombing for peace is like...: https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/60digf/bombing_for_peace_is_like_fucking_for_virginity/

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, picked up the phone during a meeting with Saudi officials and called the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn A. Hewson over a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Lockheed Martin has a long history of bribing government officials, but don’t worry - Donald Trump has assured us that he’s above corruption…

According to current and former officials this doesn’t raise legal issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/world/middleeast/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-lockheed.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2

I do not want them to give more money to NATO, I want to use their bad faith and parasitism to end NATO, and then let them decide how much they wish to spend on their own defense.

[charrob]

They are not our friends and have not been for a long time.
They are parasites. Better to cut them off entirely, but I still hope that we may.


I may be wrong, but if the Europeans defended themselves and decided to throw out the U.S. military from bases all over Europe, my gut tells me the U.S. would fight this. My gut says the U.S. wants its military all over the planet, wants hegemony, wants empire, wants European vassal states. Under Obama we now have "Africom". Why? No one made us. This was a conscious choice to control even more of the planet. The U.S. recently pushed Montenegro to become part of NATO: why? Montenegro wasn't begging to be part of NATO (half it's population doesn't even want anything to do with NATO), it was the U.S. pushing it's way as usual. The U.S. is doing the same in Georgia... it was the U.S. and it's NGO's that pushed the Georgian military into South Ossetia in 2008. It was the U.S. State Dpt. that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected president and put the U.S. military on Ukraine soil to train Ukraine soldiers and actual neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Rather than seeing Europeans as parasites, I see the U.S. military as aggressive invaders pushing their way to control everything. It's refreshing to see Merkel get some backbone and basically say 'Enough!, Europe must take fate into own hands (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-merkel-idUSKBN18O0JK).'

It would be a godsend if Europe threw out the U.S. military from its bases and became independent. Not because they are 'parasites', but because of the opposite: that it would really stick it to the globalist's dream of controlling the entire planet and having the U.S. military police it. I believe that's why we are overthrowing Assad, want to overthrow Rouhani, and eventually overthrow Putin. Because Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia and China are really the only countries left on the planet that are not vassals of the U.S.

Globalization and one-world government is the #1 threat. So, yes, NATO must be disbanded. But it's because the U.S. wants all other members to be vassal states to help fight in its endless wars of aggression: their contribution, however small, gives legitimacy to U.S. wars. An independent Europe who says 'No' to U.S. aggression is paramount in ending the globalist's desires for one-world government. The last thing we want is for Europe to pay more for U.S. military "protection"; that just advances the globalist agenda.

[Swordsmyth]

I may be wrong, but if the Europeans defended themselves and decided to throw out the U.S. military from bases all over Europe, my gut tells me the U.S. would fight this. My gut says the U.S. wants its military all over the planet, wants hegemony, wants empire, wants European vassal states. Under Obama we now have "Africom". Why? No one made us. This was a conscious choice to control even more of the planet. The U.S. recently pushed Montenegro to become part of NATO: why? Montenegro wasn't begging to be part of NATO (half it's population doesn't even want anything to do with NATO), it was the U.S. pushing it's way as usual. The U.S. is doing the same in Georgia... it was the U.S. and it's NGO's that pushed the Georgian military into South Ossetia in 2008. It was the U.S. State Dpt. that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected president and put the U.S. military on Ukraine soil to train Ukraine soldiers and actual neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Rather than seeing Europeans as parasites, I see the U.S. military as aggressive invaders pushing their way to control everything. It's refreshing to see Merkel get some backbone and basically say 'Enough!, Europe must take fate into own hands (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-merkel-idUSKBN18O0JK).'

It would be a godsend if Europe threw out the U.S. military from its bases and became independent. Not because they are 'parasites', but because of the opposite: that it would really stick it to the globalist's dream of controlling the entire planet and having the U.S. military police it. I believe that's why we are overthrowing Assad, want to overthrow Rouhani, and eventually overthrow Putin. Because Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia and China are really the only countries left on the planet that are not vassals of the U.S.

Globalization and one-world government is the #1 threat. So, yes, NATO must be disbanded. But it's because the U.S. wants all other members to be vassal states to help fight in its endless wars of aggression: their contribution, however small, gives legitimacy to U.S. wars. An independent Europe who says 'No' to U.S. aggression is paramount in ending the globalist's desires for one-world government. The last thing we want is for Europe to pay more for U.S. military "protection"; that just advances the globalist agenda.

Europe (especially the UK) is the power center of those who have controlled the U.S., they created NATO to be the enforcer of their crypto-empire, we spend nearly all the money, most of the blood, and take most of the bad press, they reap most of the benefit.

[nikcers]

Europe (especially the UK) is the power center of those who have controlled the U.S., they created NATO to be the enforcer of their crypto-empire, we spend nearly all the money, most of the blood, and take most of the bad press, they reap most of the benefit. Are you saying that the third superr power that existed during the beginning of the cold war didn't disappear just buried itself up our ass?

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that the third superr power that existed during the beginning of the cold war didn't disappear just buried itself up our ass?

You got it.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying that the third superr power that existed during the beginning of the cold war didn't disappear just buried itself up our ass?


https://mises.org/blog/colonel-house-and-woodrow-wilson-paving-way-war

Yet long before 1916, three months before the Lusitania sinking, House had met in London with the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, and made an amazing commitment. The Colonel had vague instructions from Wilson to persuade the British to lift the Blockade. Instead, as historian Justus Doenecke has commented, "Secretly defying the President, House uncritically supported Britain's war effort. More significantly, he committed his nation, under certain conditions, to enter the conflict on the Allied side."


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite24.htm

"In his book, "The ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT", Dr. Carroll Quigley writes,

"One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire, and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation, and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.

The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire builder, and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend, and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor of King Edward VII, and King George V.

The details of this important conversation will be examined later. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society, and a list of original members. The plan for organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as "The Society of the Elect", and an outer circle, to be known as 'The Association of Helpers'.

Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a 'Junta of Three'. The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after the meeting we have described."
- Quigley, Carroll (1910-1977)
The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, 1981, pg. 3"

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

LOL ULTRA NEOCON NCL criticizes progressive Thecount for criticizing the military industrial complex welfare state.


LOL more at you for being cucked trolled. Nice contribution to the site.

[nikcers]

LOL more at you for being cucked trolled. Nice contribution to the site.
SAD

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

SAD


Well, don't cry. At least you didn't befriend the trolls here.

[angelatc]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBG4AjPXkAU4_-8.jpg:large

[Zippyjuan]

What is the "required payments" countries are supposed to be putting in and how much "behind" are they? Actually, there is no fixed number. In 2014 they did get together and decided it would be a nice target if the member countries could be spending two percent of their GDP on military expenditures by 2014. That is obviously not here yet and there is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Plus you could keep your spending level flat and have the percent go up or down if your GDP goes up or down. And the money doesn't necessarily all go towards NATO. Should the US decide if another country is not spending as much as we think they should be on military? Or should that be up to the country themselves?

At any rate, relative to the goal of two percent spending, here is how most NATO countries stand:


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/170320054624-nato-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-032017-780x439.jpg

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/



Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.

NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight against ISIS.

[TheCount]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBG4AjPXkAU4_-8.jpg:large

This tweet pretends as though that's the only thing that Trump said. How about this:


"The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump said, according to German publication Der Spiegel, during his meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Thursday.

"Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S., and we'll stop that," Trump said, according to the outlet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-told-european-officials-that-germans-are-very-bad-on-trade/article/2624226

[angelatc]

This tweet pretends as though that's the only thing that Trump said. How about this:



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-told-european-officials-that-germans-are-very-bad-on-trade/article/2624226

How about getting butthurt because Trump is calling them out on our trade deficit? Yeah, how about this indeed?

[angelatc]

That is obviously not here yet and there is no penalty for not meeting the goal. /[/url]

Wow - I'm amazed that people here are defending the fact that we're actually paying far more than our fair share.

[Zippyjuan]

Wow - I'm amazed that people here are defending the fact that we're actually paying far more than our fair share.

So you are arguing we should be funding NATO- or that we should be telling other countries how much money they should spend on military? (figures show percents of GDP spent on defense- not percents or amounts going to NATO- the US spends tons of money on military all around the globe).

[acptulsa]

The ancient city-state of Athens used to build and man ships in defense of all of Greece, in exchange for a nominal renumeration y other city-states, particularly land-locked communities. Those who didn't participate didn't get protection. Eventually, Athens grew fat overcharging their neighbors for protection, and regularly beat the snot out of its allies when they were late with their payments. It's essentially history's first recorded protection racket.

And when the Spartans marched through the streets and up the Acropolis, none of the Athenians could figure out why their allies lifted not one finger.

Those who refuse to learn from history are, well, Americans, these days. Maybe we should take Russian lessons from Huggy Boy while we have the chance.

[angelatc]

So you are arguing we should be funding NATO- or that we should be telling other countries how much money they should spend on military? (figures show percents of GDP spent on defense- not percents or amounts going to NATO- the US spends tons of money on military all around the globe).

I am saying that Gutzman is saying that Germany isn't spending what she's required to spend according to the treaty, and therefore fuck her and everyone that agrees with her for calling US bad partners.

[angelatc]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38675522


Nato estimates for 2016 show that only five alliance members - the US, UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia - will spend a minimum of 2% of national output (GDP) on defence, which is the target.

Germany's defence spending of €37bn in 2017 will be 1.2% of GDP.

Please, stop depending on us.
Grow up.
Pay your own bills.

[nikcers]

What is the "required payments" countries are supposed to be putting in and how much "behind" are they? Actually, there is no fixed number. In 2014 they did get together and decided it would be a nice target if the member countries could be spending two percent of their GDP on military expenditures by 2014. That is obviously not here yet and there is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Plus you could keep your spending level flat and have the percent go up or down if your GDP goes up or down. And the money doesn't necessarily all go towards NATO. Should the US decide if another country is not spending as much as we think they should be on military? Or should that be up to the country themselves?

At any rate, relative to the goal of two percent spending, here is how most NATO countries stand:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/ Don't you know the first rule of business zippy? Who cares about long term allies, you are either first or you are last. If you can renegotiate the price in your favor you- then you renegotiate the price, I mean you do that with things you buy all the time right? You just decide to change the price of something afterwards, in order to benefit you. Like complaining about something you buy, so you get a discount, or a free replacement. Ask Trumps contractors, he negotiated them to slave wages most the time.

[TheCount]

How about getting butthurt because Trump is calling them out on our trade deficit? Yeah, how about this indeed?How many Americans should be prevented from buying the cars that they want in order to lessen "our" trade deficit?

[Swordsmyth]

Trump Confirms 1,000 More US Troops From Germany To Poland (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-12/trump-confirms-1000-more-us-troops-germany-poland-rare-f-35-flyover)