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

[Averageman]

This is why sometimes you just really should cut the cord.
As you can see there is no little amount of bias, no small amount of revisionist history either....
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ermany/528429/
Trump's Trip Was a Catastrophe for U.S.-Europe Relations
Angela Merkel has served formal notice that she will lead the German wandering away from the American alliance.
For many in London and Paris, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand very much included, the quip was no joke. Much of the present malfunctioning architecture of the European Union—including the lethal euro currency—originated in French demands for reassurance that reunification would lead to “a European Germany, not a German Europe.”
Without the United States, German reunification would never have proceeded so smoothly or rapidly. That assistance is still gratefully remembered in Germany. But gratitude cuts only so much ice in international relations. When the U.S. tried to mobilize the European powers to manage the breakup of Yugoslavia, Germany balked at the risk. But it was the George W. Bush-Gerhard Schroeder split over the Iraq war in 2003 that definitively ended German deference to American leadership.
(Trust me, as a been there done that kind of Guy in Germany, they've forgotten and get really irritated when you politely remind them
Polls show that German confidence in the United States, already lowered under Obama, has collapsed under Trump (And my IDGAF level is about pegged. Why are we worried about what the Average German thinks about our POTUS?) to a level barely better than Putin’s Russia. Facing elections in the fall—and reassured that she has gained a congenial partner in France’s President Macron—Merkel has served formal notice that she will lead the German wandering away from the American alliance. (BTW this always wortks out well for the French) In a speech before 2,000 people on Sunday, she declared that Europe cannot at this time rely on the U.S. and the U.K. “The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days,” she said. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.” Notice that she said “Europeans,” not Germans. Notice too that she did not rule out that Europe might rely on the U.S. and U.K. in the future: The door is not closed. But the old order has passed.
So you might ask why would she bite the hand that has protected Europe and especially Germany for so long

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politi...ope/index.html
"The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over," Merkel said at a beer hall(!) rally to support her campaign.
While Merkel made no mention of Trump specifically, she made clear that her realization had come "in the last few days" -- a time period which overlapped with a G7 meeting in which Trump blasted America's traditional European allies over NATO obligations and made clear that he was more than willing to go it alone on climate change and trade.
What Trump's words -- and Merkel's reaction -- reveal is something that sharp foreign policy minds have known since the start of Trump's campaign: His true potential for drastic change exists in the foreign policy sphere.
Trump's ubiquitous "Make America Great Again" slogan was interpreted by many of his followers as the idea that we would make America great again by slaying political correctness, by bringing back jobs, by keeping undocumented workers from entering our country, from showing the mainstream media who's boss. It was re-making our daily life right here in the good, old U-S-of-A that people were focused on.
But "Make America Great Again," from the inception of Trump's campaign, always had at least one foot in not only re-imagining America's role in the world community but in reshaping the world community entirely.
Again, so why so drastic an change, why so emboldened to call foul on Trump and American/German international relations?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...many-eu-2017-4
President Trump did not understand that the US cannot negotiate a trade deal with Germany alone and must deal with the European Union as a bloc, a senior German official told The Times of London.
"Ten times Trump asked [German chancellor Angela Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, 'You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU,'" the official said.
They continued: "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.'"
Merkel reportedly told her cabinet members that Trump had "very basic misunderstandings" on the "fundamentals" of the EU and trade.
The exchange occurred when Merkel met with Trump last month and reportedly convinced him to negotiate with the EU as a bloc after attempts by his administration to deal with individual countries were declined.

Okay Boys, here it comes.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ing-visit.html
President Trump pressed German Chancellor Angela Merkel “hard” on NATO dues during the leaders’ Oval Office meeting on Friday, Fox News is told – a point the president underscored during their joint press conference minutes later.
“Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years, and it is very unfair to the United States,” Trump said at the press conference, discussing the need for NATO allies to pay “their fair share” for defense. “These nations must pay what they owe.”
He then thanked Merkel, who was standing beside him, for Germany’s apparent commitment to increase defense spending and work toward contributing 2 percent of GDP to NATO.
According to a source with direct knowledge of the meeting, the comments came after Trump privately pressed Merkel during their discussion to increase NATO spending. While NATO already has asked members to invest 2 percent of their GDP, Germany has fallen under that line.
The joint press conference was amicable, despite Trump’s blunt criticism of the German leader during his presidential campaign.
In a nod to that history and other ongoing disagreements, Merkel said it is “much better to talk to one another than about one another.”


Interesting point, there were never two National Leaders more different than Trump and Merkle.
Germany and Germans seem to want all of the benefits of NATO Membership, but pay nothing for that luxury. When caught on it Angela Merkle gets a bit snippy and threatens to take her toys and go home. (BTW you might want to research some of the "help" the Germans have given us over the last few years militarily.)
The tone of the authors of the above articles seems rather anti-Trump, but to be honest, the Media is infected with Socialist Progressives with an anti American agenda.
Here we have a Nationalist President who promotes his own countries best interests. He wants to save the Tax Payers money by enforcing the rules of the NATO Charter. He attempts to negotiate individual trade agreements that would allow him to use these agreements to negotiate/leverage better trade deals with other countries. Then there is always the specter of immigration, we all can see the clear difference.
I will just say, of the two, I clearly trust Trump much more. When Merkle has some problems militarily, well she can always train and arm her new islamic germans....

[Pilot1]

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.

[Dienekes]

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.

I find it really hard to believe that they (or our very own political class!) care about their PEOPLE.

[Averageman]

So, just how long did these folks intend to bleed the Marshall plan and the American Taxpayer dry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave over $13 billion[1] (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of June 2016) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. The plan was in operation for four years beginning April 8, 1948. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous once more, and prevent the spread of communism.[2] The Marshall Plan required a lessening of interstate barriers, a dropping of many regulations, and encouraged an increase in productivity, labour union membership, as well as the adoption of modern business procedures.[3]
The Marshall Plan aid was divided amongst the participant states roughly on a per capita basis. A larger amount was given to the major industrial powers, as the prevailing opinion was that their resuscitation was essential for general European revival. Somewhat more aid per capita was also directed towards the Allied nations, with less for those that had been part of the Axis or remained neutral. The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some 18 European countries received Plan benefits.[4]

I don't know, as someone who was a Solider in Germany for almost a decade, by the time I left I was rather sick of seeing the U.S. pull the major load when it came to keeping them safe and free. This from Merkle amounts to a slap in the face.
Maybe the whole EU needs a history lesson?
Or maybe we should sit back and watch them rot,.....again.

[RazorBurn]

Or maybe we should sit back and watch them rot,.....again.

This is exactly what needs to happen. Help those who want our help, and let those who don't want it suffer the consequences of their actions.

[Averageman]

This is exactly what needs to happen. Help those who want our help, and let those who don't want it suffer the consequences of their actions.

Is 2% of your GDP too much to ask?

[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?

[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...