Germany Rejects trump's Extortion Attempt

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Mar 19, 2017.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    First Mexico told trump that they aren't paying for the wall, and now Germany told him they aren't paying the U.S. "vast sums of money."

    Could one of his supporters please remind us how great a negotiator he's supposed to be? So far his attempts to extort other nations are miserable, embarrassing failures.
    vastSums_stupidIdiot.jpg

    withLove_ursula.jpg
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    They are going to pony up if they want to keep NATO intact, I guarantee these countries will be putting more into the pot under this administration than the last.

    When someone threatens to make you pay back payments for something, suddenly paying your fair share going forward looks better.
     
  3. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    Both you and trump apparently have no idea about how NATO is funded.

    But as there was already an agreement in place to increase spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, and Germany was already increasing it's defense spending in accord with that agreement, your first guarantee is bound to be correct ... though not by anything that trump has done.
     
  4. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    NATO is funded by nations giving money, some give more than others.
     
  5. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Source please.
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    No. It is not.

    Read the article. There simply is not some NATO trust account where Britain, Germany, Spain etc., deposit their monthly NATO dues.

    NATO nations agree to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense. But GDP is variable, as are each nation's defense requirements and capabilities.

    If Germany (or any other NATO member) were to increase or decrease its defense spending - the effect on the US treasury and taxpayer would be pretty much zero.

    Donald Trump keeps illustrating his fundamental ignorance of how the world works.
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Are you seriously refuting that NATO is funded by nations providing capital? If so I can stop the arguement here, they sure aren't self funding.
     
  8. tunerX Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #8
    If NATO members spent more money they could have more troops and more equipment. More offense and defense.

    You would need less US troops, equipment, and bases in NATO countries because they would be self funding their own deterrent.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Provide a source for income streams NATO generated last year to overcome expenditures please.
     
  10. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #10
    NATO has a small logistical budget. The rest are domestic resources from each country.
     
  11. juanm, Mar 19, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #11
    It looks like Trump is looking for excuses to leave NATO... which incidentally is Putin's lifelong dream. Wait and see.
     
  12. vrDrew, Mar 19, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    There are no "NATO" soldiers. There aren't NATO generals, or NATO minesweepers.

    There are BRITISH and GERMAN soldiers, submarines, and tank battalions. They do, at times participate in exercises organized under the terms of the NATO treaty.

    But NATO doesn't directly pay the salary of any individual serviceperson. NATO doesn't buy ammunition or vehicles or aircraft.*

    But more to the point, many NATO countries "contribute" to the common defense in ways far beyond their direct military spending. Both Britain and Germany, for instance, allow US forces to operate bases on their territory. And, trust me, they aren't charging market prices for the use of that valuable real estate.

    * Edit
    Actually, not technically true. NATO does have some civilian staff, and some surveillance aircraft. But that is funded through a common budget of about $2 billion per year. And, as far as I know, each member country meets its obligations for their contributions to that budget.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    Well considering the worlds greatest military power is paying the lions share of the budget id probably make sure to get my 2% in the bucket before the US decided it doesn't really need the burden, especially with Russia in the backyard.
     
  14. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #14
    Here's how I interpret his bargaining strategy.

    He has come out with a "shoot for the moon" conservative wish list that is making the liberal heads explode (on the hour, every hour it seems), but none of this is written in stone.

    So, he gives the ultra conservatives everything they want in the initial proposal, then negotiates back toward the center. The far right won't get everything they want, but they'll get more than they would have if he had started at the center. The left will get a chance to demonize him and gloat when they "force" him to make concessions, but in the end, they'll have given him much more than someone less skilled in negotiation and persuasion (Ryan) would have gotten and Trump will end up polishing his image as a leader.

    I think the man is far craftier than he's given credit for.

    I think it's interesting that Trump has a way of shining a spotlight on issues he talks about. I dare say I have learnt more about NATO (beyond its "no action, talk only" joke) over the weekend than my entire life combined.
     
  15. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #15
    Stand by, the art of the deal is in play.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Who the **** said anything about NATO soldiers? Does NATO take up resources? Yes. Who pays for those resources and what is the proportions the weight of the burden is carried?

    Germany and the U.K. Let the US operate in their borders because they save a boat load by having the worlds greatest military power support them.
     
  17. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #17
    The UK matches the target.

    German people can be worried about spending in the military.
     
  18. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    I think he's crazier and more stupid than you do.

    And if you want to know how to tell the difference ... by the results.

    If all he does is please his hard right base, then that's a pretty poor end result.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    And if he gets other countries to provide more funding based on the fear of losing US support in NATO?

    The free ride is over.
     
  20. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #20
    We will see. A lot can happen in 4 years. Obama had 8 years after all.
     
  21. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #21
    Besides the UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece already match the target.

    And they will be joined this year by Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania.

    At least some of them really want Germany to catch up.
     
  22. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    When people talk about nations not spending their "fair share" they are talking about the percentage of GDP spent on defense. A country that pays more of its fair share will not be sending a check to donald trump. They will be increasing their own country's spending on their own defense. There are no missing back payments ... no vast amount money owed to the U.S. Trump is delusional to think so.
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    When every nation is paying its "fair share" the US will not have to pick up the tab and can decrease its commitments, those commitments cost money, pretty simple.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 19, 2017 ---
    Now just have to make sure they maintain those commitments even when they aren't afraid Putin is going to traverse their ass.
     
  24. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #24
    Well, Germany failed to find buyers for the 13 A400M it wanted to sell to lower costs, so it's now keeping them.
     
  25. citizenzen, Mar 19, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2017

    citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    In any NATO effort (short of a unanimous 28 nation vote) any nation's commitment is voluntary. The U.S. is already free to commit to whatever degree they see fit. If the U.S. wants to save money on NATO missions, they already have that power in their hands ... just as every NATO nation has the power to volunteer whatever forces they choose ...
    In any case, none of that involves owing the U.S. "vast amounts of cash." That is the part that trump is delusional about ... and Germany sent a clear reminder of that message today.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 19, 2017 ---
    ironically, trumps intention to increase the defense budget by 54 billion does exactly the opposite. According to how NATO defines commitment, trump is actually increasing U.S. commitment.

    If he wanted to decrease U.S. commitment, he could cut ~$168 billion from defense spending to reach the 2% of GDP standard that NATO wants all nations to meet. I would fully support trump making such a move.
     

Share This Page