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

[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/OldSchoolCo...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/w...=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/OldSchoolCo...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/w...=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.'

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.'

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...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/so...balelite24.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]

[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://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news...plained-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]

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/tr...rticle/2624226

[angelatc]

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



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/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 $#@! 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...plained-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