NATO and Trump

Dutchy · Thu May 25, 2017 8:25 pm

So the NATO summit was today. And President Trump felt it necessary to lecture the rest of the alliance, in his known manner. Not quite the manner to achieve something and he will not achieve anything. They just reinforce the commitments of 2014.

Moreover, the President's scolding was cast against a striking backdrop: the freshly unveiled 9/11 memorial, which marks the only time the NATO alliance has invoked Article 5. That decision triggered NATO's participation in the war in Afghanistan.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/25/polit ... -payments/

L410Turbolet · Thu May 25, 2017 9:42 pm

Trumputin "classy" as always: https://m.novinky.cz/articleDetails?aId ... &sId=&mId= (video)

BobPatterson · Thu May 25, 2017 9:45 pm

LOL. The video shows our leader "palming" his way to the front. He didn't elbow his way forward. Do we need a new term for this?

Notice his smile while "palming" change to his preferred posture of "sober leader"?

This display of character (or lack of it) needs to be showcased for all Americans to see.

I say this as an American and a Republican (who did not vote for Mr. Trump. Just couldn't do it.).

DfwRevolution · Thu May 25, 2017 10:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So the NATO summit was today. And President Trump felt it necessary to lecture the rest of the alliance, in his known manner.

Some of that lecturing has been well-earned. There are far too many free-loaders in NATO who enjoy the benefits of common defense without paying their fair share.

BobPatterson wrote:
LOL. The video shows our leader "palming" his way to the front. He didn't elbow his way forward. Do we need a new term for this?

I generally find Trump's mannerisms awful, but that's just funny. It's always got to be about him.

KLDC10 · Thu May 25, 2017 10:25 pm

I thought he made some very good points. 23 out of 28 Nato members do not meet their financial obligations. And uncontrolled, unchecked migration does cause huge security problems. Y'all might do well to listen to him rather than sanctimoniously dismissing what he says. Plenty of European leaders are in dire need of a reality check* because their policies are endangering their citizens.

*I exclude from that list:
Theresa May of the United Kingdom
Beata Szydlo of Poland
Viktor Orban of Hungary
Robert Fico of Slovakia
Lars Lokke Rasmussen of Denmark
Milos Zeman of Hungary
Christian Kern of Austria (to a certain extent; I did rather prefer Werner Faymann, although it seems that Mr Kern very well may be out of a job before very much longer)

aviationaware · Thu May 25, 2017 10:44 pm

The United States are by far the biggest contributor to NATO. It's really not asking too much for the President to be standing in the front row at a photo opportunity. This rather shows how poorly organized NATO is, every second rate organization would have positioning pre-arranged for a photo-op.

I love how Trump is ruffling feathers in Europe, the Eurocrats have grown far too complacent, and Trump's victory has show that there is the possibility for leadership from outside their pre-arranged and corrupt circles. So naturally they are distraught. No reason to make them feel comfortable.

BobPatterson wrote:

This display of character (or lack of it) needs to be showcased for all Americans to see.

All I can see is a President representing his tax payers demanding the rightful place for their contributions. That's what I'd want my leader to do.

L410Turbolet · Thu May 25, 2017 10:53 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
Milos Zeman of Hungary

Even though he is not from Hungary, he probably needs reality check most urgently out of all attendees of the summit. This collosally arrogant a$$hole is either too drunk or too sick to hold the office of the president. He skipped many parts of the official program at the NATO summit because je simply wasn't able to make physically.
The sooner he dies, the better for our country. :crossfingers:

L410Turbolet · Thu May 25, 2017 11:01 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
IY'all might do well to listen to him rather than sanctimoniously dismissing what he says.

I would rather listen directly to Putin, no need for this intelectually subpar middleman.

aviationaware wrote:
That's what I'd want my leader to do.

Behave like in kindergarten?

KLDC10 · Thu May 25, 2017 11:07 pm

L410Turbolet wrote:
Even though he is not from Hungary

My mistake. I meant to write the Czech Republic. Too late to edit my original post now I'm afraid.

Ken777 · Thu May 25, 2017 11:26 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The United States are by far the biggest contributor to NATO. It's really not asking too much for the President to be standing in the front row at a photo opportunity.

I love how Trump is ruffling feathers in Europe, the Eurocrats have grown far too complacent, and Trump's victory has show that there is the possibility for leadership from outside their pre-arranged and corrupt circles. So naturally they are distraught. No reason to make them feel comfortable.

BobPatterson wrote:

This display of character (or lack of it) needs to be showcased for all Americans to see.

All I can see is a President representing his tax payers demanding the rightful place for their contributions. That's what I'd want my leader to do.

It isn't a matter of how much American Dollars have been invested in NATO over the years. it is about Super Ego believing he has to be the canter of attention in all situations. This reminds me of a story about a charity holding a major event in NY City. Trump (who was NOT a loner) walked on stage and sat in one of the chairs for major donors - leaving the actual donor to sit in the general audience. Did Trump make a donation at the end of the event? Not a chance - that was just for his ego to be fluffed up a bit. She as we saw today.

As for European Feathers, you need to remember that Trump was the least experience politically at the Summit. And the dumbest There was no need for Trump to take that approach except as raw meat for the most ignorant in his voter base. That makes it clear that Trump will not be interested in foreign relations in the future - especially after two huge leaks impacting major allies.

Planeflyer · Fri May 26, 2017 4:47 am

How many articles have been published in Europe over the last 10 years about the large # of Europeon NATO members that have not met commitments?

Is it fake news that the majority of European member countries don't live up to their commitments?

Don't like Trump lectures?

Pay up and realize that soft power does not impress the likes of Putin

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 4:56 am

That was a fantastic speech by Trump. it takes balls to say, what needs to be said. Now it is time we sent the lazy liberal countries a bill for the money they own the USA. I think Trump will be remembered as the president who did the most for a European defence integration.

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 5:16 am

aviationaware wrote:
The United States are by far the biggest contributor to NATO..

It is also the biggest economy in the NATO, having roughly half of NATOs GDP. The United States do however only contribute 22% to the NATO Budget, Germany doing 15%, France and the UK each about 10%.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 5:23 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Pay up and realize that soft power does not impress the likes of Putin

You may want to check out of little forces Russia has left, and how relatively much the European NATO Partners have left. Russias military couldn´t even confidently take on Turkey.

best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT · Fri May 26, 2017 5:37 am

seahawk wrote:
That was a fantastic speech by Trump. it takes balls to say, what needs to be said. Now it is time we sent the lazy liberal countries a bill for the money they own the USA. I think Trump will be remembered as the president who did the most for a European defence integration.

Amen !

Trump said:

…I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces. We have to make up for the many years lost.

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 6:02 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
"This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves."
[/i]

I love how stupid your president is. So, other NATO partners paying less than they should is unfair to the US taxpayer, but he has no intention to safe the US taxpayer a single US$.

"Owe" is also a nice description for a non-binding agreement that isn´t even violated yet, since it was only made in 2014 and is along the lines of "working towards the goal" within a decade, i.e. until 2023.

As i said, Trump is an idiot that in this case, as always, has no clue what he is talking about.

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Fri May 26, 2017 7:09 am

Ken777 wrote:

As for European Feathers, you need to remember that Trump was the least experience politically at the Summit. And the dumbest

You see, it is exactly this kind of hubris from his opponents that propelled him into office. Glad to see you have learned.

SAS A340 · Fri May 26, 2017 7:30 am

Mr Trumps main agenda here, regarding NATO,s fare share is to sell more us made weapon, nothing else!

Redd · Fri May 26, 2017 7:44 am

KLDC10 wrote:
I thought he made some very good points. 23 out of 28 Nato members do not meet their financial obligations. And uncontrolled, unchecked migration does cause huge security problems. Y'all might do well to listen to him rather than sanctimoniously dismissing what he says. Plenty of European leaders are in dire need of a reality check* because their policies are endangering their citizens.

*I exclude from that list:
Theresa May of the United Kingdom
Beata Szydlo of Poland
Viktor Orban of Hungary
Robert Fico of Slovakia
Lars Lokke Rasmussen of Denmark
Milos Zeman of Hungary
Christian Kern of Austria (to a certain extent; I did rather prefer Werner Faymann, although it seems that Mr Kern very well may be out of a job before very much longer)

Aside from the decision not to accept refugees, Kaczynski (which is the actual power in Poland) has over the past 1.5 years in power taken the country back more than 10 years of progress economically, socially, from the point of safety and security and environmentally. Next time you praise any 'leaders' please have an actual clue about what you speak.

Dutchy · Fri May 26, 2017 7:51 am

TRUMP wrote:
And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.

And here you go, fundamentally not grasping the concept of NATO. Nobody "owes" anything to NATO, nobody - except for the expenses of NATO itself - pays anything to NATO. And the US spends more than the next 9 countries combined, 3,3% of GDP (2015), if American society wants to spend that much, fine, but don't lecture the rest of the world. Trump is said he wants the NATO partners to spend 3% of the GDP, rediculous. I agree that Europe + Canada could spend a little more, say 1,5% of the GDP and more integrating the European defense efforts to become more effective.

Trump has his little stage to fill his ego and he has accomplished nothing.

PanHAM · Fri May 26, 2017 8:10 am

Exactly, Dutchy. But I think that this can be explained to Trump as often as People have Patience, he will not understand it. If Tommy's figures are correct, that the US contribute 22% to NATO costs while Germany contributes 15%, than Germany spends per head much more tha the US does. There is a similar descripancy with the cost of UNO.

The national defence Budget is a different Thing, Germany will increase the share in relation to the GNP from 1,3% to 1,5%, providing the parliament approves that.

B777LRF · Fri May 26, 2017 8:16 am

That speech only served to display for all and sundry, how utterly out of his depth and badly informed Trump is. Perhaps if he would drop a game of golf, he might actually get to read something.

To wit: None of the member states owes NATO anything. Not. A. Dime. And even if all NATO countries upped their defence spending, it wouldn't save the US taxpayer a single cent in taxes.

There is indeed a statement of intent, which encourages NATO members to work towards a 2% GDP spend, to be realised somewhere around 2025. But it's not a legally binding agreement, not by a long shot.

He's a Class A ignoramus, and never fails to display how much of an intellectual midget he is. Some say the size of his hands eclipse that of his IQ, all we now is that someone here coined the moniker 'Cheeto von F@ckstick'.

L410Turbolet · Fri May 26, 2017 8:27 am

tommy1808 wrote:
As i said, Trump is an idiot that in this case, as always, has no clue what he is talking about.

He is an idiot, but the numbers regarding military spending unfortunately speak for themselves. 2% has been agreed by all NATO members. That's a fact. It's even more embarrassing for educated and seasoned politicians be told the sad truth by a man-child.

tommy1808 wrote:
Russias military couldn´t even confidently take on Turkey.

Newsflash: Turkey is probably the very last NATO country they want to take on.

tommy1808 wrote:
You may want to check out of little forces Russia has left, and how relatively much the European NATO Partners have left.

Relatively. Even with what they have left they are capable to cause a lot of problems. See eastern Ukraine. Let's not forget that human life is not worth anything in Russia so willingness to sustain casualties is higher. They will happily go back to bread lines and food rations if the ruler of Kremlin decides this needs to be done for the "glory" of Russia. You are right in one aspect though. Hardware is one thing, resolve another. I'd say there are currently only 4 or 5 countries in Europe (Baltics, Poland and Sweden) that do not need to be explained what a threat Russia is.

N14AZ · Fri May 26, 2017 8:33 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
" [...] Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined [...]"

Of course, the USA had to pay more on defense than other states (measured in % of their GDP) because they started a war on another continent based on fake news (that term didn't exist at that time but everybody with a minimum sized brain knew that the proof of mass destruction weapons presented by the poor minister of defense was fake...).

At that time we clearly said that we will not take part in that war because we knew it was fake and not correct and now we even shall pay for all the mess?

N14AZ · Fri May 26, 2017 8:43 am

BobPatterson wrote:
LOL. The video shows our leader "palming" his way to the front. He didn't elbow his way forward. Do we need a new term for this?

Notice his smile while "palming" change to his preferred posture of "sober leader"?

This display of character (or lack of it) needs to be showcased for all Americans to see.

I say this as an American and a Republican (who did not vote for Mr. Trump. Just couldn't do it.).

All the time since the elections I refrained from commenting on your president because it's not my business. I even understood why he became president, Ms. Clinton was not the right choice, she should have know herself or the democrats should have stopped her.... That being said, and after seeing this video, I really think he is sick...

aviationaware wrote:
All I can see is a President representing his tax payers demanding the rightful place for their contributions. That's what I'd want my leader to do.

From the time we still had flags in our profiles I remember that you are German (correct me if I am wrong). So you want Ms. Merkel or the next chancellor to behave like this? I cannot agree and would be ashamed if she / he would do it. I would be even concerned about our reputation abroad. Maybe I am old-fashioned, of course...

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 8:58 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
He is an idiot, but the numbers regarding military spending unfortunately speak for themselves. 2% has been agreed by all NATO members. That's a fact. It's even more embarrassing for educated and seasoned politicians be told the sad truth by a man-child.

Nope, he lied. The agreement is to work towards 2% by the mid 2020s. Not now, not in the past.

Newsflash: Turkey is probably the very last NATO country they want to take on.

I didn´t say he would.

tommy1808 wrote:
You may want to check out of little forces Russia has left, and how relatively much the European NATO Partners have left.

Relatively. Even with what they have left they are capable to cause a lot of problems. .

And having more military would take that ability away how? You can cause a lot of problems with a hand full of dedicated people and a few million bucks. How strong the military is matters not a bit outside of full scale war. And such a war would either go nuclear, likely, or end with a border agreement with China. Where Russia btw. puts most of its advanced weapons, they know there won´t be anything resembling a real war with Europe.

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Fri May 26, 2017 9:06 am

N14AZ wrote:
From the time we still had flags in our profiles I remember that you are German (correct me if I am wrong). So you want Ms. Merkel or the next chancellor to behave like this? I cannot agree and would be ashamed if she / he would do it. I would be even concerned about our reputation abroad. Maybe I am old-fashioned, of course...

It's about priorities. Do you want a reserved, coy leader who is on the other hand selling you out for the 'greater good' of some neo-stalinist Euroa ideology? Then Merkel is your gal. I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country.
I'd rather have someone like Trump, who is undoubtedly a klutz, but stands for the right thing (in broad strokes).

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 9:06 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That was a fantastic speech by Trump. it takes balls to say, what needs to be said. Now it is time we sent the lazy liberal countries a bill for the money they own the USA. I think Trump will be remembered as the president who did the most for a European defence integration.

Amen !

Trump said:

…I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces. We have to make up for the many years lost.

It is a simple case. Either the liberal Europeans pay or the US ends NATO. It was a clear message that Trump did not promise unconditional support to NATO. So far all US presidents did and the Europeans led the US shoulder the costs of freedom. This time is over.

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 9:20 am

aviationaware wrote:
hen Merkel is your gal. I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country..

because you don´t want a budget surplus, record employment numbers and a highly competitive economy?

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 9:25 am

Germany is a bad, bad country.

L410Turbolet · Fri May 26, 2017 9:40 am

tommy1808 wrote:
And having more military would take that ability away how?

Deterrent? Force is the only language Russians understand. What do you think stopped WarPac from "liberating" the workers in Western Europe by means of tank columns rolling though the Fulda Gap and tactical nukes?
Those endless KGB organized and funded silly peace marches?
Lesbians camping the whole decade outside of Greenham Common?
No, those "ugly" NATO weapons and real boots on the ground (not only the) West Germany was going all apeshit about in the 1980s.

aviationaware wrote:
selling you out for the 'greater good' of some neo-stalinist Euroa ideology?

I really think you should use only words meaning of which you clearly understand.

aviationaware wrote:
I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country.

Think of comrade Schulz.

Dutchy · Fri May 26, 2017 9:45 am

seahawk wrote:
Germany is a bad, bad country.

lol, it should stand in a corner and think about what it did?

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 9:47 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Germany is a bad, bad country.

lol, it should stand in a corner and think about what it did?

President Trump said so, it must be true....

Dutchy · Fri May 26, 2017 9:51 am

seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Germany is a bad, bad country.

lol, it should stand in a corner and think about what it did?

President Trump said so, it must be true....

Ah yes, if the President of the United States has said so, it certainly must be true /sarcasmoff

Flighty · Fri May 26, 2017 9:58 am

My stock phrase about Trump is, if he intellectually outperforms you, if he morally outperforms you, shame on you. Admit when he is right. Go ahead and criticize him when he is wrong, which happens a lot.

NATO knows well that he is correct. What should we do, allow NATO's mediocrity to fester... Germany owes a great deal of money to NATO, by treaty. Trump was considered a "fool" for even mentioning that fact.

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 9:58 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

lol, it should stand in a corner and think about what it did?

President Trump said so, it must be true....

Ah yes, if the President of the United States has said so, it certainly must be true /sarcasmoff

Yes, it is true. And the trade advantage of Germany is also bad, very bad. It shows why Belgium enjoys lower import taxes into the US than Germany. Trump will make it happen that there will be no more German cars on the US streets, as long as there are not as many US cars on the German streets. The rumours coming out of the discussion with Tusk and Junker are epic, to be honest.

L410Turbolet · Fri May 26, 2017 10:05 am

Flighty wrote:
if he intellectually outperforms you, if he morally outperforms you,

Is that even possible?

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 10:05 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
Deterrent? Force is the only language Russians understand. What do you think stopped WarPac from "liberating" the workers in Western Europe by means of tank columns rolling though the Fulda Gap and tactical nukes?

WMD on both sides and the knowledge that, due to prevailing winds they would have, regardless of the battlefield, screwed themselves royally, even with just initial chemical and nuclear attacks and without like for like NATO response. That is the deterrent. Not the number of tanks. They where aggressiv, not suicidal.,

Those endless KGB organized and funded silly peace marches?

More than more tanks actually. Public pressure kept governments from overspending on military hardware, and wracking their own economy in the process. There is a level of force that is enough, anything beyond that is a waste of tax payers money.We won because we had sustainable defense spending, they lost because they didn´t.

No, those "ugly" NATO weapons and real boots on the ground (not only the) West Germany was going all apeshit about in the 1980s.

And apparently there where more than enough, and as we know since the collapse of the USSR, their troops where nowhere near as ready, trained and equipped as the bogyman they where painted to be. Same is true today, there are many reasons to dislike Russia and perceive them as a threat, but thinking they would take a hike into NATO territory is flat out ridiculous.

aviationaware wrote:
I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country.

Think of comrade Schulz.

The guys who´s biography you didn´t even get remotely right, correct?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 10:07 am

Flighty wrote:
Germany owes a great deal of money to NATO, by treaty. Trump was considered a "fool" for even mentioning that fact.

He is a fool, or would you care to quote that treaty....... because there is no such treaty.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy · Fri May 26, 2017 10:11 am

seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:

President Trump said so, it must be true....

Ah yes, if the President of the United States has said so, it certainly must be true /sarcasmoff

Yes, it is true. And the trade advantage of Germany is also bad, very bad. It shows why Belgium enjoys lower import taxes into the US than Germany. Trump will make it happen that there will be no more German cars on the US streets, as long as there are not as many US cars on the German streets. The rumours coming out of the discussion with Tusk and Junker are epic, to be honest.

Then the US car industry should make better cars, or do you suggest the Germans must buy an inferior product?

N14AZ · Fri May 26, 2017 10:11 am

aviationaware wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
From the time we still had flags in our profiles I remember that you are German (correct me if I am wrong). So you want Ms. Merkel or the next chancellor to behave like this? I cannot agree and would be ashamed if she / he would do it. I would be even concerned about our reputation abroad. Maybe I am old-fashioned, of course...

I'd rather have someone like Trump, who is undoubtedly a klutz, but stands for the right thing (in broad strokes).

Okay, I got your point. So a perfect leader for both of us would be someone like Trump, just with a little bit better behavior... and maybe more background information on how international affairs work.

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 10:15 am

Dutchy wrote:
Then the US car industry should make better cars, or do you suggest the Germans must buy an inferior product?

Or maybe we should get rid of comprehensive social systems, maternity leave (paid up to 14 month, unpaid up to 3 years), high income taxes and high corporate taxes, extremely unionized car industry........

After all, those are by republican logic, an Oxymoron i know, all those things that a country can´t afford if it wants to be competitive in a globalized market. ....

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Fri May 26, 2017 10:15 am

tommy1808 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
hen Merkel is your gal. I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country..

because you don´t want a budget surplus, record employment numbers and a highly competitive economy?

best regards
Thomas

Competitive in relative terms. And virtually none of that is due to Ms. Merkel. Did I mention that this 'record employment' has seen zero wage growth in the past 10 years and is based on basically giving away 200 billion worth of goods for free every year (because that's what an export surplus really means)? Oh, and the competitiveness is created on the backs of the people of southern Europe, who have to live with unfavorable terms just to keep this weird Euro dream alive.

L410Turbolet wrote:

aviationaware wrote:
I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country.

Think of comrade Schulz.

Well, Schulz is definitely bad - for one, his performance as President of the European Parliament is second in shamefulness to only that of Göring in the Reichstag. But at least with Schulz you get face value and not some two-faced crap. He actually admits that he wants a United States of Europe with Germany paying for everybody else.

seahawk · Fri May 26, 2017 10:18 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Ah yes, if the President of the United States has said so, it certainly must be true /sarcasmoff

Yes, it is true. And the trade advantage of Germany is also bad, very bad. It shows why Belgium enjoys lower import taxes into the US than Germany. Trump will make it happen that there will be no more German cars on the US streets, as long as there are not as many US cars on the German streets. The rumours coming out of the discussion with Tusk and Junker are epic, to be honest.

Then the US car industry should make better cars, or do you suggest the Germans must buy an inferior product?

President Trump will find a way. "If they think they can build a factory in Mexico and then sell the cars in the USA, they need to think again." I just love quoting President Trump, I did not have as much fun since Hot Shots 2.

Kiwirob · Fri May 26, 2017 10:30 am

seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:

President Trump said so, it must be true....

Ah yes, if the President of the United States has said so, it certainly must be true /sarcasmoff

Yes, it is true. And the trade advantage of Germany is also bad, very bad. It shows why Belgium enjoys lower import taxes into the US than Germany. Trump will make it happen that there will be no more German cars on the US streets, as long as there are not as many US cars on the German streets. The rumours coming out of the discussion with Tusk and Junker are epic, to be honest.

How do you force Europeans to buy inferior US made junkers? People are happily snapping up Fords, Opels and Vauxhalls, all companies owned by US corporations, or recently owned in the case of Opel and Vauxhall.

Aesma · Fri May 26, 2017 10:32 am

I hope Trump is purposefully being obtuse and really knows that there is no money owed to the US.

NATO members have agreed to SPEND more on their OWN MILITARY, not give money to the US.

I think Trump rolling back on his initial argument that NATO is obsolete is too bad, that's one topic on which I agreed with him. NATO should be dialed back, be a simple alliance like used to exist before WW2, a treaty promising to defend each other. Taking efforts to have compatible hardware could continue, but NATO should not be some kind of pseudo unified military force.

Emphasis on pseudo, because in practice each country still does its own thing. For example France is fighting in the Sahel, and has managed to convince Germany to help. But Germany has vastly different rules of engagement, has NATO standards (meaning US standards) for ratios like "number of troops needed to backup front line troops" that only work for humongous militaries and not for European ones, making their help pretty much useless.

L410Turbolet · Fri May 26, 2017 10:34 am

tommy1808 wrote:
The guys who´s biography you didn´t even get remotely right, correct?

Not right? Compared to Merkel, Schulz is an uneducated, arrogant twat and a lifetime apparatchik.They had to literally force him out of the EP.
You were trying to polish a turd, not me.

tommy1808 wrote:
but thinking they would take a hike into NATO territory is flat out ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is the idea that this time you can dance with the Russian bear.

tommy1808 wrote:
More than more tanks actually.

Of course, I keep forgetting I am talking to a guy who thinks flooding Europe with migrants was the best thing since sliced bread.

tommy1808 wrote:
as the bogyman they where painted to be

Bogeyman? Only a fool or a pacifist would believe that.

tommy1808 wrote:
Not the number of tanks. They where aggressiv, not suicidal.

a) They had the WarPac armies to literally commit suicide. Russians only came when the scorched earth was "liberated".
b) Superiority (in numbers) in conventional weapons was a key element of the WarPac doctrine.

Dutchy · Fri May 26, 2017 10:37 am

aviationaware wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
hen Merkel is your gal. I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country..

because you don´t want a budget surplus, record employment numbers and a highly competitive economy?

best regards
Thomas

Competitive in relative terms. And virtually none of that is due to Ms. Merkel. Did I mention that this 'record employment' has seen zero wage growth in the past 10 years and is based on basically giving away 200 billion worth of goods for free every year (because that's what an export surplus really means)? Oh, and the competitiveness is created on the backs of the people of southern Europe, who have to live with unfavorable terms just to keep this weird Euro dream alive.

L410Turbolet wrote:

aviationaware wrote:
I couldn't think of someone worse to lead a country.

Think of comrade Schulz.

Well, Schulz is definitely bad - for one, his performance as President of the European Parliament is second in shamefulness to only that of Göring in the Reichstag. But at least with Schulz you get face value and not some two-faced crap. He actually admits that he wants a United States of Europe with Germany paying for everybody else.

And now I have lost every respect for your opinions. You are an extremist.

tommy1808 · Fri May 26, 2017 10:47 am

aviationaware wrote:
Competitive in relative terms.

In deed.

Did I mention that this 'record employment' has seen zero wage growth in the past 10 years

Actually, the record employment came about when wage growth kicked back in.... 2015 we had 2.4% plus with a 2.7% increase in purchasing power, 2014 had 1.9%, 2016 had 1.8%.

and is based on basically giving away 200 billion worth of goods for free every year (because that's what an export surplus really means)?

gosh... really. What a shocker.... price elasticity is a bitch too you know. And more importantly, how is the government going to change that in a free market economy? The invisible hand ain´t good enough when you don´t like the outcome?

Oh, and the competitiveness is created on the backs of the people of southern Europe, who have to live with unfavorable terms just to keep this weird Euro dream alive.

Which is my favorite nonsense argument .... before the EURO everyone was saying that the poor, poor Germany doesn´t stand a chance to compete with those southern European EURO countries...
And those poor southern European people, that are so squashed by those evil, evil German workers had a 30% wage increase between 1999 and 2008. But lets just pretend that never happened, for the sake of the argument, right?

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Fri May 26, 2017 10:48 am

Dutchy wrote:
And now I have lost every respect for your opinions. You are an extremist.

I am actually pretty much dead center, but I don't blame you for thinking I am an extremist. After all, the corporate media's brainwashing IS effective, that's no news.

tommy1808 wrote:
Actually, the record employment came about when wage growth kicked back in.... 2015 we had 2.4% plus with a 2.7% increase in purchasing power, 2014 had 1.9%, 2016 had 1.8%.

When I say in the past 10 years, I mean that real wages are stagnant compared to 10 years ago, not that there wasn't a single year with growth.

tommy1808 wrote:
And more importantly, how is the government going to change that in a free market economy? The invisible hand ain´t good enough when you don´t like the outcome?

Get rid of the Euro. And throw out the illusion that we have a free market with it. We don't.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net