Just in case you missed it, Merkle vs POTUS Trump, NATO Debt and Trade...

[MountainRaven]

This is what happens when you refuse to tell NATO that you believe Article V is important, talk about how great Putin is, and insist that your NATO partners pay, "their fair share," before the US will assist them (Trump has never said 2% of GDP, only 'fair share' and words to that effect - and the likelihood of Putin attacking Germany is slim. The likelihood of Putin attacking US and German allies in Eastern Europe - like the Baltic states and Romania - which pay their 2%, but are poor countries, and therefore fear they may be left out to dry).

I find it really hard to believe that Merkel, and Germany care about their national defense when they promote the legal invasion of their own country by foreigners.

The German military is a hot potato in German politics. Increasing military spending and expanding the German military is politically difficult to do.

Which is why the German military is integrating units from the Netherlands, Czech Republic, and Romania.

[Big A]

I say we close Ramstien AFB and relocate our assets and funding to Poland...

[Averageman]

This is what happens when you refuse to tell NATO that you believe Article V is important, talk about how great Putin is, and insist that your NATO partners pay, "their fair share," before the US will assist them (Trump has never said 2% of GDP, only 'fair share' and words to that effect - and the likelihood of Putin attacking Germany is slim. The likelihood of Putin attacking US and German allies in Eastern Europe - like the Baltic states and Romania - which pay their 2%, but are poor countries, and therefore fear they may be left out to dry).

Perhaps more to the point is the line of thought that, if you don't want to contribute, when things go south, don't give us a call?
In order for an organization like NATO to continue everyone must contribute and maintain a solid Military and Defensive posture. Not only must they remain strong militarily, they must act in the best interest of the group at large, in cases like Turkey, that is simply not happening so much anymore.
So between the Bad Actors and the Cheapskates, should we make the American Taxpayer shoulder their burden and continue to pick up the tab for the EU to succeed?
Honestly the whole idea of an EU should have made NATO no longer necessary, the only reason it remained necessary was they needed our defense.
The whole while they relied on us they continued to take advantage of our trade posture and they pretty much talked crap and moved further toward a socialist progressive one world government.
Reap/Sow, it's an old idea, but it is truth.

[leibermuster]

Also keep in mind Angela Merkels background. Its highly dubious to say the least. She's not even German.

If you look at her family. Its highly suspicious just like most of its leaders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tb-av]

Also keep in mind Angela Merkels background. Its highly dubious to say the least. She's not even German.

How is she not German when she was born in Hamburg?

[26 Inf]

So, just how long did these folks intend to bleed the Marshall plan and the American Taxpayer dry?

Uh, for four years? The plan was in operation for four years beginning April 8, 1948.

Let's take a look at the Marshall Plan. The United States was key to winning WWII. Why? Primarily because of the industrial might and resources (including men) America was able to throw into the war. It doesn't take much of a thinker or strategist to understand that America's manufacturing ability, which had been ramped up during the war, was not going to go silently away into the night. Additionally, although they may not have realized it then, the women who had been part of the war effort in manufacturing, etc., were not going to meekly fade into the background. Compound those realizations with the fact that as the Armed Forces demobilized several hundred thousand men needed to enter the workforce. Remember, many of the soldiers who served in WWII were teenagers and had limited work experience.

America's built up manufacturing capability outstripped what we could consume. Most of Europe was in ruin. America needed markets and ruined economies would not be potential markets for American goods. The Marshall plan was not completely humanitarian, it included a good slice of self-interest in the mix.

Likewise, our stationing of forces throughout Europe after the war was largely a matter of self-interest which continued throughout the Cold War.

[Averageman]

Uh, for four years? The plan was in operation for four years beginning April 8, 1948.

All of that cost money and continued for a half century, well past its shelf life for a reason for us to prop up Europe.
So they get up on their feet and form the EU,they insist on collective trade bargaining that puts us at a disadvantage, all of course while they undercut us on NATO Defense spending and drag their collective German feet when we ask them for assistance on anything.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ss-target.html
Germany's military is unable to meet its medium-term readiness target should NATO call on its members to mobilize against an attack, officials said Monday.
The revelation follows days of embarrassing reports about equipment failures that included German army instructors being stranded in Bulgaria en route to Iraq when their plane broke down, and delays in sending weapons to arm Kurdish fighters because of another transport problem.
In the latest incident, the military said one of two aging C-160 aircraft flying German aid to Ebola-affected West Africa has also been grounded on the island of Gran Canaria since the weekend, awaiting repairs.
Asked about a Der Spiegel report that Germany at this juncture wouldn't be able to offer the appropriate number of military aircraft within 180 days of an attack on the NATO alliance, Defense Ministry spokesman Jens Flosdorff confirmed that was the case.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...ry-dying-13748
Germany now spends just 1.2% of GDP on defense, far below the NATO recommended 2%.
In the past year numerous articles have arisen demonstrating the Bundeswehr’s lack of readiness. Fixed wing aircraft, helicopters and other vehicles have been grounded due to lack of spare parts, bringing readiness rates below 50%.
http://content.time.com/time/world/a...906570,00.html
Since the 1990s, after reunification, German forces have become more involved in military missions abroad, but there are caveats. The German parliament has to give the green light for any foreign deployment, which it usually does only after long debate. There are currently 247,000 soldiers enrolled in the Bundeswehr and German troops are now serving all over the world, in places such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.
But some say the Bundeswehr, which is a conscript army, is too bureaucratic and ill-equipped to deal with the modern-day challenges of combat. "Germany's armed forces are often overstretched. There are too many bases in Germany, too many personnel and the equipment is often old-fashioned," says Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations. "There is long-overdue reform under way to make the Bundeswehr leaner. It should be easier to deploy forces quickly abroad," he adds, referring to far-reaching plans to modernize the army's equipment and scale back troop numbers.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-994607.html
Last week, a single person pushed Germany's air force to the very limits of its capacities: Ursula von der Leyen, the country's defense minister. Von der Leyen requested that two Transall military transport aircraft with missile defense systems be transferred to Amman, the Jordanian capital. The defense minister and a pool of reporters then flew for eight hours on Thursday morning in one of the aircraft to Erbil in Iraq's Kurdish region. Back in Germany, the military had but a single additional Transall at its disposal.
After her arrival in Erbil, von der Leyen proceeded to the palace of the Kurdish regional government's president. Her visit was to be concurrent with the delivery of German weapons, intended to aid the Kurds in their fight against Islamic State jihadists. Unfortunately, the machine guns and bazookas got stuck in Germany and the trainers in Bulgaria because of a dearth of available aircraft. One had been grounded because of a massive fuel leak. What could have been a shining moment for the minister instead turned into an embarrassing failure underscoring the miserable state of many of the Bundeswehr's most important weapons systems.
So their Military kinda sucks, they don't want to spend any of "Their" money on fixing it, but they do want an EU and everything that goes along with it.
If you want a NATO, you have to pay for it, if you don't want to pay for it, you don't want a NATO.
Clearly they have money to bring in refugee's that are becoming expensive and causing some discontent.
So how do you spell "Priorities" in German?

[leibermuster]

How is she not German when she was born in Hamburg?

I don't want too derail this thread. But for argument sake. If I was born in Poland it would not make me polish. Nor would it make me Chinese if I was born in china.

That being said if you closely look at her roots it is weird. Also it seems her political party Has very little do with anything Christian, well the first word in the party name is Christian.

Merkel's family was the first or only family to migrate to eastern Germany during the Cold War. That is a clue to me.

Her past is ###### to say the least, as is the whole political scene in Germany.

I would like to see Germany on its own now and truly independent. If certain nations want to get into a fight. I say fight it out already and stop using countries as proxy nations as tools for conflict.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Averageman]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../euro-j31.html
Amid growing protests across the United States and internationally against US President Donald Trump’s order denying access to the United States to travelers from seven Muslim countries, German and French officials criticized the ban this weekend. On Saturday, newly installed German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and his French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault, pledged to raise the issue in future talks with Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee to be US Secretary of State, once he takes office.
The ban “can only worry us,” Ayrault declared. “We have signed international obligations, so welcoming refugees fleeing war and oppression forms part of our duties … There are many other issues that worry us. This is why Sigmar and I also discussed what we are going to do. When our colleague, Tillerson, is officially appointed, we will both contact him.”
Gabriel claimed that Trump’s policies broke with Western traditions of offering refuge to the persecuted: “Love thy neighbor is part of this tradition, the act of helping others. This unites us, we Westerners. And I think that this remains a common foundation that we share with the United States, one we aim to promote.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/merkel-...ied-1485687277
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday voiced opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend entry to the U.S. for some refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.
But again, is it really about money?
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story...y-trade-000445
Trump has a point when he criticizes the U.S.-Germany trade deficit: German exports really are artificially inflated. Contrary to Trump’s focus on automobile tariffs, though, this isn’t because of any specific German trade policy. In fact, Germany doesn’t even have its own trade policy. Instead, the European Union sets trade policy for its members and Germany is a part of it. “The European Union is a full customs union — lock, stock and barrel,” said Brad Setser, a former senior official in the Treasury Department under Obama. “Germany is one voice amongst many in setting the common European tariff policy."
The Germans have also exported these macroeconomic policies to the rest of the Eurozone by forcing nations like Greece to adopt tight fiscal policy in exchange for bailouts. Such policies have benefited German manufacturers which have maintained their economic competitiveness, but it has led to a very slow recovery across Europe, which has weighed on the global economy.
So Germany wants an EU economy that is weighted toward their own benefit, but can't commit to NATO budgetary requirements?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I say we close Ramstien AFB and relocate our assets and funding to Poland...

Poland, an actual ally.

If you take a longer view on history, it has always been the issue of someone trying to assert control over continental Europe. Britian has always tried to counter balance the stronger party to keep some kind of divide with the strategic goal of not allowing someone the ability to dictate terms to or control them. Britian declared war on Germany for invading Poland, and when Russia invaded, crickets. Not quite that simple, but the model for a couple of centuries. We adopted the role of the British post WWII.

That Germany would like to rise to be dominant country in Europe is just history repeating itself. That they would sacrifice the Baltic states and the Ukraine for more influence is certain. Hell, they'd probably split Poland with Russia again when the time comes.

If Poland doesn't have a nuke program, they are historical and strategic retards.

Giving Trump crap over Article V is complete BS when we walked away from even the assurances we gave Ukraine.

Trump has said that the NATO countries need to do more for their defense, and it seems that they will. That Germany has been skirting their responsibilities to the tune of 1% of GDP, they have a lot of money to make up. So the Germans at least are going to stand up, sounds like Trump gets what he wanted.

It would be interesting to levy an import tariff on German goods to make up the difference, of course, we get to spend it on stuff to defend Europe...