After summits with Trump, Merkel says Europe must take fate into own hands

[chrissables]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Wrong wrong wrong.

 

They did not agree to pay anything 'in'.

 

If we went out for a meal and I said 'mate i can't come as I don't get paid for another two weeks' and you said 'nah come on out, I will pay for you, it can be your turn after pay day,' and then that night you made a scene at the table because I had no money,  - who is wrong?

 

The countries agreed to expand their defence spending by 2024. Is that so difficult for the Trump supporters to actually understand and acknowledge? It is like watching pre-schoolers trying to get a grip on quantum entanglement.

 

Trump comes out with some crap as part of a speech written by an illiterate tool and you all believe him without so much as an educated thought, despite 90% of the time he fails fact checking.

Nato made an agreement to pay in 2% GDP in 2006.

 

After 8 years of many countries not meeting the agreement, it was agreed in 2014 they would meet the commitment by 2024.

 

It appears to me they did agree, to pay 2% GDP, but keep moving the goalposts as to when meet what they agreed.

[chrissables]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

Pay in? To what?

 

Nobody is "wrong". Some ordered Big Macs, but some only ordered cheese burgers.

 

Finally, the agreement was to all order at least Big Macs from 2024 onwards 

Pay into may be the wrong term, agreed. Pay 2% of GDP on defence. That was agreed, and mostly is not being done it appears.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, chrissables said:

it was agreed in 2014 they would meet the commitment by 2024.

ok, that's it then. Lets stop this nonsense for 7 years please.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Nato made an agreement to pay in 2% GDP in 2006.

No they did not. The 2% idea was discussed and presented at the summit meeting in Riga 2006. You are spinning. They did NOT agree to anything.

[smedly]

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Wrong wrong wrong.

 

They did not agree to pay anything 'in'.

 

If we went out for a meal and I said 'mate i can't come as I don't get paid for another two weeks' and you said 'nah come on out, I will pay for you, it can be your turn after pay day,' and then that night you made a scene at the table because I had no money,  - who is wrong?

 

 

wow and there you have it, Germany in a Nutshell, except what is wrong is that Germany is not broke, they have used and abused everyone and everything around them to enrich themselves and control 27 economies in Europe, Trump has called them out - watch what happens next in the EU as the rest waken up and smell the cheese, the UK leaving is going to leave a massive hole in EU finances - watch how the EU 26 realise there was only 1 - oh wait a two speed europe lol, I am beginning to get a feeling of who won't stand for it.............Macron, I don't think he is the yes man everyone thought he was.

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

ok, that's it then. Lets stop this nonsense for 7 years please.

 

 

 

No they did not. The 2% idea was discussed and presented at the summit meeting in Riga 2006. You are spinning. They did NOT agree to anything.

Please show me where it was not agreed. 

 

The information i found says it was agreed. (The Economist)

[Andaman Al]

2 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Please show me where it was not agreed. 

 

The information i found says it was agreed. (The Economist)

where's your link then?

[chrissables]

6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

where's your link then?

Pathetic response to a genuine question.

 

You talk as if you a wise old sage, when asked for the source of your knowledge ask a question back.

 

I don't claim to know all, so i looked it up and gave you the source, "The Economist".

 

Maybe they are lying, maybe you are ill informed. I have no idea.

Edited May 31, 2017 by chrissables

[smedly]

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

The countries agreed to expand their defence spending by 2024. Is that so difficult for the Trump supporters to actually understand and acknowledge? It is like watching pre-schoolers trying to get a grip on quantum entanglement.

so you keep saying and repeating and repeating and repeating.............we got it

 

However, the reality is that the US is contributing huge resource and finance to EU security - why should they, nothing to do with NATO or anything else for that matter - simply - why should they ???? why should the America tax payer fund anything in Europe to protect Europe interests while Germany sits pretty observing and reaping.

 

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the richest of them all - now there's a chart worth looking at over the last 40 years 

[Andaman Al]

3 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Pathetic response to a genuine question.

 

You talk as if you a wise old sage, when asked for the source of your knowledge ask a question back.

 

I don't claim to know all, so i looked it up and gave you the source, "The Economist".

 

Maybe they are lying, maybe you are ill informed. I have no idea.

Tsk Tsk. How rude !

 

From 2015 before all this Trump induced hoo haa. And I asked for your link because I wanted to see the use of the term 'agreed'. Please see below (warning - too many words for most Trump supporters). You will find all you seek within, quite near the start. I am sure if you want to understand the NATO dichotomy you will read it all.

 

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

[chrissables]

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Tsk Tsk. How rude !

 

From 2015 before all this Trump induced hoo haa. And I asked for your link because I wanted to see the use of the term 'agreed'. Please see below (warning - too many words for most Trump supporters). You will find all you seek within, quite near the start. I am sure if you want to understand the NATO dichotomy you will read it all.

 

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

:)

 

Here is the link i found, which states the 2% GDP started / was agreed  in 2006.

 

I am a Brit, not American, but Trump won the election, he is the President, his views count.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, chrissables said:

:)

 

Here is the link i found, which states the 2% GDP started / was agreed  in 2006.

 

I am a Brit, not American, but Trump won the election, he is the President, his views count.

No linkey linkey. 

 

Trumps 'views' have nothing to do with it. It is akin to signing a rental agreement for  3 years on a condo and then coming back after 12 months and complaining about the rent. Agreement was arrived at in 2014 for 2024 compliance. Final

 

All Trump is doing is what Putin has dreamed of since he was a high ranking KGB officer, he is commencing the downfall of the one thing that kept Global stability - A strong NATO. It kept the Russian bear in it's cage and now complete morons are endorsing Trumps mentally deranged decision making processes. Supporting any 70 year old President who sits at a summit table and flips the bird at the Italian PM is quite mad to be honest,  and you say "his views count'?? Really? From what I see the US had no idea they were getting this little mental package when they voted him in. They just thought they would have a reality TV President to keep them entertained while they munch on fast food and drink oversized soda's. Instead they have someone who history will show was the most traitorous President in almost 300 years.

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

No linkey linkey. 

 

Trumps 'views' have nothing to do with it. It is akin to signing a rental agreement for  3 years on a condo and then coming back after 12 months and complaining about the rent. Agreement was arrived at in 2014 for 2024 compliance. Final

 

All Trump is doing is what Putin has dreamed of since he was a high ranking KGB officer, he is commencing the downfall of the one thing that kept Global stability - A strong NATO. It kept the Russian bear in it's cage and now complete morons are endorsing Trumps mentally deranged decision making processes. Supporting any 70 year old President who sits at a summit table and flips the bird at the Italian PM is quite mad to be honest,  and you say "his views count'?? Really? From what I see the US had no idea they were getting this little mental package when they voted him in. They just thought they would have a reality TV President to keep them entertained while they munch on fast food and drink oversized soda's. Instead they have someone who history will show was the most traitorous President in almost 300 years.

The link

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

[smedly]

14 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

"However, the reality is that the US is contributing huge resource and finance to EU security - why should they, nothing to do with NATO" The reality is that the US and other NATO countries ratified a non legally binding agreement in Wales in 2014 to contribute 2%, though as my link in the post above shows that is a rather meaningless number.

 

As for this bit  "the US is contributing huge resource and finance to EU security - why should they, nothing to do with NATO"" - You clearly have no idea about what is required in force projection. You have no idea of why the US NEEDS it's European presence, in fact -you have no idea. So why not scurry along to a subject matter that you are more comfortable with that you understand, it will prove to be a far more satisfying and rewarding forum experience.

oh dear

 

my projection is ............................................you are on ignore - only the second poster ever on TVF to receive the honour 

[Andaman Al]

Just now, smedly said:

oh dear

 

my projection is ............................................you are on ignore - only the second poster ever on TVF to receive the honour 

the Truth can be tough to handle. Trump finds out every day.

[Andaman Al]

11 minutes ago, chrissables said:

The link

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

Yes the economist do use the term 

Quote

That is almost double the target of 2% of GDP that NATO members all agreed to in 2006

a rather unfortunate use of the word agreed and only fuels people into thinking something which did not exist.

 

I am sure you will agree that the article I linked to is an objective non partisan discussion paper presenting both sides, and also links to NATO documents and records that support it. There was no 'agreement' in 2006.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Andaman Al

[theoldgit]

Accusation of racist remark removed, together with follow on argument.

[maximillian]

On 29.5.2560 at 1:47 PM, smedly said:

The Ukraine were about to join the EU and Russia doesn't like it, they are now being bullied by Russia - history repeating itself, what exactly is Germany/EU going to do about it.................absolutely nothing without the US  the UK and Nato.

 

There is currently a dangerous standoff going on across the world right now were certain Nations and leaders are wanting stuff and/or wanting to dominate or take - even settle old scores 

Dear smedley, you need to get the right information about the history of Ukraine.

There are more than enough sources from reputable Americans who could tell you the whole story.

Listen to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern on youtube (Ray McGovern on Ukraine)

Read or listen to Noam Chomsky, Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul, listen to US General Wesley Clark.

And if you want listen to George Friedman or read Zbigniew Brzeziński, they might be more agreeable to you. At least they are telling about the motives of the US empire.

Remember, the main stream media as well as the governments are lying to us.

Think of the 9/11 lie, that started the war on terror, think of the incubator lie that started the first Iraq war, think of the weapon of mass destruction lie that started the second Iraq war, think of the Tonkin lie that started the Vietnam war, think of the many US backed regime changes.

There's a lot to learn, smedley, but you have to get the right info yourself. Don't let propaganda rule your thinking.

[smedly]

17 minutes ago, maximillian said:

Dear smedley, you need to get the right information about the history of Ukraine.

There are more than enough sources from reputable Americans who could tell you the whole story.

Listen to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern on youtube (Ray McGovern on Ukraine)

Read or listen to Noam Chomsky, Jesse Ventura, Ron Paul, listen to US General Wesley Clark.

And if you want listen to George Friedman or read Zbigniew Brzeziński, they might be more agreeable to you. At least they are telling about the motives of the US empire.

Remember, the main stream media as well as the governments are lying to us.

Think of the 9/11 lie, that started the war on terror, think of the incubator lie that started the first Iraq war, think of the weapon of mass destruction lie that started the second Iraq war, think of the Tonkin lie that started the Vietnam war, think of the many US backed regime changes.

There's a lot to learn, smedley, but you have to get the right info yourself. Don't let propaganda rule your thinking.

my reference and history of the Ukraine goes back 70 years - it is a torrid read 

[Opl]

In just over a month, Germany ill host the G20 Summit in Hamburg. This is where the big questions on climate and trade will come back even stronger and that the Europeans in the G20 will have to weigh to stand up to the United States.

A test not to be missed, because of the coming élections in Germany and a possible fourth term for Angela Merkel.

[Caps]

2 hours ago, smedly said:

so you keep saying and repeating and repeating and repeating.............we got it

 

However, the reality is that the US is contributing huge resource and finance to EU security - why should they, nothing to do with NATO or anything else for that matter - simply - why should they ???? why should the America tax payer fund anything in Europe to protect Europe interests while Germany sits pretty observing and reaping.

 

Mirror mirror on the wall who is the richest of them all - now there's a chart worth looking at over the last 40 years 

You could also say that the US is contributing huge resources and finance for their own security.  It just happens to be on EU soil?    So that is why the yank tax payer is funding it.  If it was not the case they would/could scale down their troops/bases in Europe....can't see it happening though!

[mikebike]

"Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance."

 

From: NATO Speech: Briefing by NATO Spokesman - MOD - 8 June 2006 

 

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

[tomacht8]

 

What an artificial dispute about the 2%

If you look at the US bombing list after WII, what did that cost then in GDP%?

 

    Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

    Guatemala 1954

    Indonesia 1958

    Cuba 1959-1961

    Guatemala 1960

    Congo 1964

    Laos 1964-73

    Vietnam 1961-73

    Cambodia 1969-70

    Guatemala 1967-69

    Grenada 1983

    Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

    Libya 1986

    El Salvador 1980s

    Nicaragua 1980s

    Iran 1987

    Panama 1989

    Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)

    Kuwait 1991

    Somalia 1993

    Bosnia 1994, 1995

    Sudan 1998

    Afghanistan 1998

    Yugoslavia 1999

    Yemen 2002

    Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

    Iraq 2003-2015

    Afghanistan 2001-2015

    Pakistan 2007-2015

    Somalia 2007-8, 2011

    Yemen 2009, 2011

    Libya 2011, 2015

    Syria 2014-2016

[maximillian]

6 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

 

What an artificial dispute about the 2%

If you look at the US bombing list after WII, what did that cost then in GDP%?

 

    Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

    Guatemala 1954

    Indonesia 1958

    Cuba 1959-1961

    Guatemala 1960

    Congo 1964

    Laos 1964-73

    Vietnam 1961-73

    Cambodia 1969-70

    Guatemala 1967-69

    Grenada 1983

    Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

    Libya 1986

    El Salvador 1980s

    Nicaragua 1980s

    Iran 1987

    Panama 1989

    Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)

    Kuwait 1991

    Somalia 1993

    Bosnia 1994, 1995

    Sudan 1998

    Afghanistan 1998

    Yugoslavia 1999

    Yemen 2002

    Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

    Iraq 2003-2015

    Afghanistan 2001-2015

    Pakistan 2007-2015

    Somalia 2007-8, 2011

    Yemen 2009, 2011

    Libya 2011, 2015

    Syria 2014-2016

 

Many enemies they have.

Just what the Military Industrial Complex needs to thrive and prosper.

Well, as long as US tax payers and voters agree...

[Opl]

"Within weeks of his inauguration, President Donald Trump had already wrought a strategic revolution in U.S. foreign policy. Russia, formerly an antagonist, has been promoted to preferred partner. In its place, Team Trump has identified a new enemy. With this enemy there can be no coexistence, no cooperation. It must be humbled and divided, not merely defeated but utterly overthrown. This enemy is the European Union."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/the-plan-to-end-europe/521445/

[Thakkar]

9 hours ago, Opl said:

"Within weeks of his inauguration, President Donald Trump had already wrought a strategic revolution in U.S. foreign policy. Russia, formerly an antagonist, has been promoted to preferred partner. In its place, Team Trump has identified a new enemy. With this enemy there can be no coexistence, no cooperation. It must be humbled and divided, not merely defeated but utterly overthrown. This enemy is the European Union."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/the-plan-to-end-europe/521445/

 

Thanks. In April, that piece seemed a little hyperbolic. Today, after Trump's behavior in Europe, remarks about NATO, failure to reititerate Art.5 and the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the article seems just right.

[YetAnother]

it took a summit with trump to figure this out ?

[Thakkar]

29 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

it took a summit with trump to figure this out ?

 

Until they actually met him, they couldn't tell if his bizarre buffoonery was some sort of act. 

 

Now they know he really is a pathologically dishonest, unqualified, inexperienced, temperamental, ignorant flimflam artist who is also  a solipsistic imbecile. They've further confirmed that he is a narcissistic domineering corrupt bigoted cretinous incompetent grifter with a monumental ego. They saw clearly that he rules like a fickle, mega-subjective, emotionally-decrepit, frazzled person.

 

They are seriously worried that his creepy connections to the Kremlin, his lack of discipline and refusal to learn, his capriciousness, impulsiveness and yearning for approval, his shiftiness and his dishonesty and his lack of loyalty to supporters and allies will drag them all down unless they forge a path away from The US.

 

It turns out what you see is what you get with Trump and his administration. That horrifying freak show is real.

 

I hope that answers your question. :)

Edited June 2, 2017 by Thakkar

[Andaman Al]

9 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Now they know he really is a pathologically dishonest, unqualified, inexperienced, temperamental, ignorant flimflam artist who is also  a solipsistic imbecile. They've further confirmed that he is a narcissistic domineering corrupt bigoted cretinous incompetent grifter with a monumental ego. They saw clearly that he rules like a fickle, mega-subjective, emotionally-decrepit, frazzled person.

Never let it be said that you sit on the fence Thakkar.   

[Thakkar]

Just now, Andaman Al said:

Never let it be said that you sit on the fence Thakkar.   

My only reservation is that I may have been unduly kind to that nutcracker.

[Ramen087]

23 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Until they actually met him, they couldn't tell if his bizarre buffoonery was some sort of act. 

Now they know he really is a pathologically dishonest, unqualified, inexperienced, temperamental, ignorant flimflam artist who is also  a solipsistic imbecile. They've further confirmed that he is a narcissistic domineering corrupt bigoted cretinous incompetent grifter with a monumental ego. They saw clearly that he rules like a fickle, mega-subjective, emotionally-decrepit, frazzled person.

They are seriously worried that his creepy connections to the Kremlin, his lack of discipline and refusal to learn, his capriciousness, impulsiveness and yearning for approval, his shiftiness and his dishonesty and his lack of loyalty to supporters and allies will drag them all down unless they forge a path away from The US.

It turns out what you see is what you get with Trump and his administration. That horrifying freak show is real.

I hope that answers your question. :)

good god, man.  it's like you ate a thesaurus for lunch and you're burping up litlle bits.  take a chill pill.  you're drawing some wild conclusions.