Only 4 countries in Europe meet the agreed defence budget of 2% of GDP - Poland, Estonia, UK and Greece.
The rest are sponging off the US taxpayer. The worst is Germany because it is the wealthiest nation in Europe.
And Germany is mounting this argument of deflection to justify its refusal to meet the target. It says other expenditure should be recognised as the equivalent to actual military spending, such as aid to undeveloped countries in the ME and North Africa.

What they really mean is, when they get another million immigrants, they want to write off the cost of supporting them as defence spending and continue to have the American taxpayer hold their hand against Russia.

Trump won't buy that one.

After the US, GB contributes the most to Nato, financially and manpower-wise......

Looking at your Enoch Powell quote there, I am reminded of a play called The Long Sunset, about the the time the last legions left Britain and the immediate bleak future for the remaining Roman citizens.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 7:13am:

Only 4 countries in Europe meet the agreed defence budget of 2% of GDP - Poland, Estonia, UK and Greece. The rest are sponging off the US taxpayer. The worst is Germany because it is the wealthiest nation in Europe. And Germany is mounting this argument of deflection to justify its refusal to meet the target. It says other expenditure should be recognised as the equivalent to actual military spending, such as aid to undeveloped countries in the ME and North Africa. What they really mean is, when they get another million immigrants, they want to write off the cost of supporting them as defence spending and continue to have the American taxpayer hold their hand against Russia. Trump won't buy that one.

I would not either.

What does Germany's sovereign military budget have to do with the US?

I'm curious. We'll flesh this one out, shall we?

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 1:15pm:

What does Germany's sovereign military budget have to do with the US? I'm curious. We'll flesh this one out, shall we?

Nothing at all, if they want to protect themselves with their 'sovereign military', but if they want to remain part of NATO they have to pay their way.

Be patient with the Karnal, Fireball. Its understanding of international affairs is limited.

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 1:56pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 1:15pm: What does Germany's sovereign military budget have to do with the US? I'm curious. We'll flesh this one out, shall we? Nothing at all.

That's what I thought, Matty. So why is Bogie cutting and pasting Mr Trump'sy Tweets? Bogie's a German, you know.

Do you think Bogie's trying to outsource the Wehrmacht to the US? Is he trying to get the Reichtstag moved to Washington?

Or do you think he just wants a cut of all those valuable US defence contracts?

I'm curious. Bogie doesn't appear to want to say. Loose lips sink ships, eh?

Why are you such a fvvkwit?

The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey.
Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish?
More on the Italian situation later.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 6:53am:

The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later.

Angela will lose the elections this year & we'll have a new policy in Germany.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 7:13am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 6:53am: The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later. Angela will lose the elections this year & we'll have a new policy in Germany.

It may very well be too late, she has caused the problems in Europe with the many thousands of illegals she allowed in to placate the chimp who left The Whitehouse earlier this year. The road to hell is paved with good intentions........of which she had none.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 6:53am:

The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later.

Because it's not a military problem, Bogie. It's a humanitarian one. Mind you, if what you're saying is NATO should be deployed to shoot fleeing men, women and children out of the water, no problem.

We will make the North Atlantic great again, no?

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 7:13am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 6:53am: The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later. Angela will lose the elections this year & we'll have a new policy in Germany. It may very well be too late, she has caused the problems in Europe with the many thousands of illegals she allowed in to placate the chimp who left The Whitehouse earlier this year. The road to hell is paved with good intentions........of which she had none.

Germany should be FOR Germany

What has NATO achieved?

At what cost?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 10:16am:

What has NATO achieved? At what cost?

Only defending Western Europe from the Soviets during the Cold War, Sprint.

Today, NATO exists as a foot in the door for the US - a role Europeans are quite happy to support, given US support in two world wars.

In the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s, the US bombed Serbia as part of NATO. Back then, the image of white Europeans engaging in genocide and urban warfare was unthinkable. We are generations totally unfamiliar with war. How easily we forget.

Such a conflict today would almost certainly see Russia involved. We're already seeing Russia in Georgia and the Ukraine. We've seen a cyber/propaganda offensive against Sweden. We're seeing them in Syria. Russian involvement is even trans-Atlantic, going as far as intervening in elections in the US.

NATO exists to defend Europe from Soviet, and now, Russian expansion. Europe has managed to resolve most of its other conflicts internally, through free trade and the EU. There are a few exceptions, such as Basque separatism, but for the most part Europe has solved hard conflicts through loans and trade, not bullets. A main reason the Irish troubles have ceased is Ireland's move away from Britain and into the common market.

The Russians see Europe as the cause of their problems. This goes back to the heavy toll of IMF regulations placed on Russia in its transition to capitalism in the 1990s. The IMF demanded privatization and opening up to foreign markets. This saw entire Russian industries fall into the hands of foreigners for a song. While Russian wages dwindled and inflation soared, the cost of food and utilities went through the roof. Russians have never forgotten this.

Putin's response was to "nationalize" Russian industries and big business into the hands of his cronies, the oligarchs. Putin lent them the capital with those very IMF loans. Putin blamed the Western financial elites for stealing Russian industries, and he blamed NATO for the breakup of the Soviet Union for threatening to defend states which had succeeded from the union. Putin's plan is to get these states back.

In the 2000s, Putin used the US's War On Terror to expand Russia's reach, first invading Chechnya in the late 90s. He crafted this aggression into an agreement with George Bush after Sept 11. Since then, he has tested NATO, step by step as he has moved west, into NATO's sphere of influence.

Trump's anti-NATO message suits Putin's cause perfectly. The US, however, will never let NATO go, as Mike Pence has already affirmed. NATO is a valuable foothold in Europe for the US. Trump might be Commander in Chief, but he doesn't have the power to unknit fundamental post-war security agreements, or not yet anyway. While NATO is a rather passé cold war bulwark, it serves other purposes for the US - most notably keeping the US military industrial complex alive and well.

Remember, the US military is an economy of its own, with the GDP and even the population of a small European country. The US military provides jobs, but importantly, it also provides contracts for companies most closely aligned to the US political elite in both major parties. These companies employ lobbyists and fund think tanks to spruik their causes. On the domestic front, the NRA is one influential association that receives funds from arms manufacturers, funds friendly politicians' campaigns and, most importantly, shapes a grass-roots political message that keeps weapons in business.

On the foreign front, Gulf Arabs and Israel are an important part of this game. Kuwait employed Washington lobbyists to get the US to invade Iraq the first time. Saudi and Israeli-aligned bodies fund political campaigns and policy institutes. Even Australia is subject to the US' military industrial complex. We now have two US bases and actively spy on behalf of the US, sharing information as part of the post-war Five Eyes agreement. On the UN, we follow the US' vote on all security matters. We follow the US into most foreign wars, and none of this has anything to do with the defense of Australia or even our interests.

Today, the defense of Europe from the Soviets/Russians is coming back into focus. It might not be a new cold war, but Putin is the biggest state danger to European security. Without NATO, Putin would be free to bring Eastern Europe back into Russian influence, which is his ultimate goal.

The US can pull out of this one and watch Russia emerge as a major foreign power again. This appears to be Trump's plan. Dumb pranks like presenting Germany with a bill for decreasing their military budget does nothing. While it might get a cheer from a few Yanks who don't know what it's about, it reinforces foreign leaders' opinion of Trump as a dud, someone not interested in solutions, just phoniness.

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 7:13am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 6:53am: The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later. Angela will lose the elections this year & we'll have a new policy in Germany. It may very well be too late, she has caused the problems in Europe with the many thousands of illegals she allowed in to placate the chimp who left The Whitehouse earlier this year. The road to hell is paved with good intentions........of which she had none.

Hitler will be turning in his grave.

Sacred German soil has been stained by muslims.

The Karnal thinks he knows what I am. "Bogie's a German you know" he says.
I may have some German DNA from 1500 years or so ago, as many of us could if we have Anglo Saxon descent

But the Karnal has shown us over time what he is.
He is a maker of false statements, ie. a liar, and most probably a promoter of the Islamisation of all western countries. He certainly goes out of his way to defend and negate all and any criticism of the evil that is Islam.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 10:16am:

What has NATO achieved? At what cost?

It has stopped Russia from doing what it did in Crimea to Germany and other NATO countries.

There is a 'price/cost' to pay and all NATO countries should be paying it instead of some relying on the few who actually do cover the cost of the majority of their bill as well?

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 11:55am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 10:16am: What has NATO achieved? At what cost? Only defending Western Europe from the Soviets during the Cold War, Sprint. Today, NATO exists as a foot in the door for the US - a role Europeans are quite happy to support, given US support in two world wars. In the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s, the US bombed Serbia as part of NATO. Back then, the image of white Europeans engaging in genocide and urban warfare was unthinkable. We are generations totally unfamiliar with war. How easily we forget. Such a conflict today would almost certainly see Russia involved. We're already seeing Russia in Georgia and the Ukraine. We've seen a cyber/propaganda offensive against Sweden. We're seeing them in Syria. Russian involvement is even trans-Atlantic, going as far as intervening in elections in the US. NATO exists to defend Europe from Soviet, and now, Russian expansion. Europe has managed to resolve most of its other conflicts internally, through free trade and the EU. There are a few exceptions, such as Basque separatism, but for the most part Europe has solved hard conflicts through loans and trade, not bullets. A main reason the Irish troubles have ceased is Ireland's move away from Britain and into the common market. The Russians see Europe as the cause of their problems. This goes back to the heavy toll of IMF regulations placed on Russia in its transition to capitalism in the 1990s. The IMF demanded privatization and opening up to foreign markets. This saw entire Russian industries fall into the hands of foreigners for a song. While Russian wages dwindled and inflation soared, the cost of food and utilities went through the roof. Russians have never forgotten this. Putin's response was to "nationalize" Russian industries and big business into the hands of his cronies, the oligarchs. Putin lent them the capital with those very IMF loans. Putin blamed the Western financial elites for stealing Russian industries, and he blamed NATO for the breakup of the Soviet Union for threatening to defend states which had succeeded from the union. Putin's plan is to get these states back. In the 2000s, Putin used the US's War On Terror to expand Russia's reach, first invading Chechnya in the late 90s. He crafted this aggression into an agreement with George Bush after Sept 11. Since then, he has tested NATO, step by step as he has moved west, into NATO's sphere of influence. Trump's anti-NATO message suits Putin's cause perfectly. The US, however, will never let NATO go, as Mike Pence has already affirmed. NATO is a valuable foothold in Europe for the US. Trump might be Commander in Chief, but he doesn't have the power to unknit fundamental post-war security agreements, or not yet anyway. While NATO is a rather passé cold war bulwark, it serves other purposes for the US - most notably keeping the US military industrial complex alive and well. Remember, the US military is an economy of its own, with the GDP and even the population of a small European country. The US military provides jobs, but importantly, it also provides contracts for companies most closely aligned to the US political elite in both major parties. These companies employ lobbyists and fund think tanks to spruik their causes. On the domestic front, the NRA is one influential association that receives funds from arms manufacturers, funds friendly politicians' campaigns and, most importantly, shapes a grass-roots political message that keeps weapons in business. On the foreign front, Gulf Arabs and Israel are an important part of this game. Kuwait employed Washington lobbyists to get the US to invade Iraq the first time. Saudi and Israeli-aligned bodies fund political campaigns and policy institutes. Even Australia is subject to the US' military industrial complex. We now have two US bases and actively spy on behalf of the US, sharing information as part of the post-war Five Eyes agreement. On the UN, we follow the US' vote on all security matters. We follow the US into most foreign wars, and none of this has anything to do with the defense of Australia or even our interests. Today, the defense of Europe from the Soviets/Russians is coming back into focus. It might not be a new cold war, but Putin is the biggest state danger to European security. Without NATO, Putin would be free to bring Eastern Europe back into Russian influence, which is his ultimate goal. The US can pull out of this one and watch Russia emerge as a major foreign power again. This appears to be Trump's plan. Dumb pranks like presenting Germany with a bill for decreasing their military budget does nothing. While it might get a cheer from a few Yanks who don't know what it's about, it reinforces foreign leaders' opinion of Trump as a dud, someone not interested in solutions, just phoniness.

Is this a little plagiarise 'Cut & Paste fvvkwit?

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 1:38pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 11:55am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 10:16am: What has NATO achieved? At what cost? Only defending Western Europe from the Soviets during the Cold War, Sprint. Today, NATO exists as a foot in the door for the US - a role Europeans are quite happy to support, given US support in two world wars. In the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s, the US bombed Serbia as part of NATO. Back then, the image of white Europeans engaging in genocide and urban warfare was unthinkable. We are generations totally unfamiliar with war. How easily we forget. Such a conflict today would almost certainly see Russia involved. We're already seeing Russia in Georgia and the Ukraine. We've seen a cyber/propaganda offensive against Sweden. We're seeing them in Syria. Russian involvement is even trans-Atlantic, going as far as intervening in elections in the US. NATO exists to defend Europe from Soviet, and now, Russian expansion. Europe has managed to resolve most of its other conflicts internally, through free trade and the EU. There are a few exceptions, such as Basque separatism, but for the most part Europe has solved hard conflicts through loans and trade, not bullets. A main reason the Irish troubles have ceased is Ireland's move away from Britain and into the common market. The Russians see Europe as the cause of their problems. This goes back to the heavy toll of IMF regulations placed on Russia in its transition to capitalism in the 1990s. The IMF demanded privatization and opening up to foreign markets. This saw entire Russian industries fall into the hands of foreigners for a song. While Russian wages dwindled and inflation soared, the cost of food and utilities went through the roof. Russians have never forgotten this. Putin's response was to "nationalize" Russian industries and big business into the hands of his cronies, the oligarchs. Putin lent them the capital with those very IMF loans. Putin blamed the Western financial elites for stealing Russian industries, and he blamed NATO for the breakup of the Soviet Union for threatening to defend states which had succeeded from the union. Putin's plan is to get these states back. In the 2000s, Putin used the US's War On Terror to expand Russia's reach, first invading Chechnya in the late 90s. He crafted this aggression into an agreement with George Bush after Sept 11. Since then, he has tested NATO, step by step as he has moved west, into NATO's sphere of influence. Trump's anti-NATO message suits Putin's cause perfectly. The US, however, will never let NATO go, as Mike Pence has already affirmed. NATO is a valuable foothold in Europe for the US. Trump might be Commander in Chief, but he doesn't have the power to unknit fundamental post-war security agreements, or not yet anyway. While NATO is a rather passé cold war bulwark, it serves other purposes for the US - most notably keeping the US military industrial complex alive and well. Remember, the US military is an economy of its own, with the GDP and even the population of a small European country. The US military provides jobs, but importantly, it also provides contracts for companies most closely aligned to the US political elite in both major parties. These companies employ lobbyists and fund think tanks to spruik their causes. On the domestic front, the NRA is one influential association that receives funds from arms manufacturers, funds friendly politicians' campaigns and, most importantly, shapes a grass-roots political message that keeps weapons in business. On the foreign front, Gulf Arabs and Israel are an important part of this game. Kuwait employed Washington lobbyists to get the US to invade Iraq the first time. Saudi and Israeli-aligned bodies fund political campaigns and policy institutes. Even Australia is subject to the US' military industrial complex. We now have two US bases and actively spy on behalf of the US, sharing information as part of the post-war Five Eyes agreement. On the UN, we follow the US' vote on all security matters. We follow the US into most foreign wars, and none of this has anything to do with the defense of Australia or even our interests. Today, the defense of Europe from the Soviets/Russians is coming back into focus. It might not be a new cold war, but Putin is the biggest state danger to European security. Without NATO, Putin would be free to bring Eastern Europe back into Russian influence, which is his ultimate goal. The US can pull out of this one and watch Russia emerge as a major foreign power again. This appears to be Trump's plan. Dumb pranks like presenting Germany with a bill for decreasing their military budget does nothing. While it might get a cheer from a few Yanks who don't know what it's about, it reinforces foreign leaders' opinion of Trump as a dud, someone not interested in solutions, just phoniness. Is this a little plagiarise 'Cut & Paste fvvkwit?

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION.

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 1:32pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 10:16am: What has NATO achieved? At what cost? It has stopped Russia from doing what it did in Crimea to Germany and other NATO countries. There is a 'price/cost' to pay and all NATO countries should be paying it instead of some relying on the few who actually do cover the cost of the majority of their bill as well?

They do pay it, dear. Their sovereign military budgets have nothing to do with NATO, as every schoolboy knows. 

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 1:44pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 1:32pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 10:16am: What has NATO achieved? At what cost? It has stopped Russia from doing what it did in Crimea to Germany and other NATO countries. There is a 'price/cost' to pay and all NATO countries should be paying it instead of some relying on the few who actually do cover the cost of the majority of their bill as well? They do pay it, dear. Their sovereign military budgets have nothing to do with NATO, as every schoolboy knows.

But do they pay enough for their NATO membership fvvkwit?

Their 'sovereign military budget' would include NATO membership payment, as every schoolboy, but not many schoolgirls like you know, you fvvkwit.

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 1:49pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 1:44pm: Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 1:32pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 10:16am: What has NATO achieved? At what cost? It has stopped Russia from doing what it did in Crimea to Germany and other NATO countries. There is a 'price/cost' to pay and all NATO countries should be paying it instead of some relying on the few who actually do cover the cost of the majority of their bill as well? They do pay it, dear. Their sovereign military budgets have nothing to do with NATO, as every schoolboy knows.  But do they pay enough for their NATO membership fvvkwit? Their 'sovereign military budget' would include NATO membership payment, as every schoolboy, but not many schoolgirls like you know, you fvvkwit.

NATO doesn't have membership fees, Matty. It's a treaty.

Trump presented the Krauts with a "bill" for cuts the German government made to its defense budget, as every schoolboy, schoolgirl and fvvkwit knows.

Except you, dear.

Oh I see, fvvkwit they get a free ride then?.......

Where did I mention fees?

I said they have to contribute their FAIR SHARE to NATO as a coalition of Western military forces, it isn't a credit card subscription you idiot.

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 2:45pm:

Oh I see, fvvkwit they get a free ride then?....... Where did I mention fees? I said they have to contribute their FAIR SHARE to NATO as a coalition of Western military forces, it isn't a credit card subscription you idiot.

So what did you mean by a "NATO membership" payment? Dues?

Germany's "FAIR SHARE" would be specific to a particular military operation or deployment, Matty. Which one did you have in mind?

We'll do a compare and contrast with Uncles contribution.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 10:16am:

Fuzzball wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 8:24am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 7:13am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 6:53am: The question in my mind is why is NATO not deployed to repel the African invasion from across the Mediterranean and the ME invasion through Turkey. Do the peoples of Europe have a death wish? More on the Italian situation later. Angela will lose the elections this year & we'll have a new policy in Germany. It may very well be too late, she has caused the problems in Europe with the many thousands of illegals she allowed in to placate the chimp who left The Whitehouse earlier this year. The road to hell is paved with good intentions........of which she had none. Germany should be FOR Germany

That's what Mr Trump used to say about Amerika, Sprint.

Since then, he's discovered military spending, by which he means making his friends a buck.

Back in the Reagan-led 80s, Mr Trump wanted to decrease military spending. Back in the Bush-era 2000s, Mr Trump wanted out of Iraq because it cost "trillions" that could be spent on nurses and teachers.

Now?

Mr Trump is happy to be a good Republican and bring in all those campaign dollars the arms-industry so generously provides. 

Still, he tried, no? 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/787862/NATO-head-Jens-Stoltenberg-demands-Germany-spends-more-Europe-s-defence

Yep, the Krauts have to pay their way, or defend themselves.

If Hungary and Poland hold their nerve in the face of the EU's attempt to railroad them into taking garbage deliveries from the ME, then Germany et al might have to find even more money to keep their security blanket.

Good to have you back, Bogie. Have you come up with any info on the Fatherland's debt to Amerika yet?

We're waiting with baited breath, you know. Do you want to say, or should we hold out for Mr Trump's next Tweet?