Support NeoGAF

[zer0das]

Is this the first time a country has aggressively pushed for strong German military? It's kinda surreal.

Especially funny to me since I have this mental image of French and British big cheeses at their militaries being more than happy to be the top dogs of european military projection thinking they are tough shit while Germany has been very low key in this regard.

And I mean, I know this is possibly just another Putin projection to make NATO seem more weak but I cannot imagine him actually wanting stronger military for western europe.

It was always in the back of the mind of the western allies that an armed Germany was probably a necessity to guard against the Soviets, but there was also the fear of the German army becoming too strong. Didn't stop them from having mostly ex-Wehrmacht serve as officers when the German army was reformed in 1955.

Also for Operation Unthinkable, the plan called for 10 German divisions if a war broke out against the Soviets in the aftermath of World War 2. Which was probably completely unrealistic given the state of Germany.

So probably the first to demand a Germany armed to this extent, yes.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

I mean, isn't the point of a national election to decide who represents the country?
He is the president of the US.
The only people not responsible for him are those who voted against him, and thats a serious minority of Americans.

 

[Siegcram]

Can we stop with this useless "Americans are uninformed idiots" narrative? The majority of people eligible to vote didn't even vote for Trump. They don't speak for or represent all Americans, thanks. Some of us are fighting everyday against this administration.

Of course he represents you.

And the majority of your electorate didn't deem it worthy of their time to prevent a mentally handicapped person from occupying the highest political office, so it's pretty generous to just call you "uninformed".

 

[Holy Order Sol]

Can we stop with this useless "Americans are uninformed idiots" narrative? The majority of people eligible to vote didn't even vote for Trump. They don't speak for or represent all Americans, thanks. Some of us are fighting everyday against this administration.

Some people are just actually enjoying seeing the US struggle and feeling vindicated in hating them.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

What a douche

 

[sprinkles]

2% would make the German military budget by far the biggest in Europe. And other countries want that? My mind is totally blown.

 

[Muffin1611]

I wonder what the reaction of Schulz would have been. God, I hope he becomes Chancellor. Seeing him spite Trump will be glorious.

Some people are just actually enjoying seeing the US struggle and feeling vindicated in hating them.

Or maybe allies don't take it very well when the US gives them made up bills they're supposed to pay for NATO and deem it okay in the next moment to not send their Secretary of State Tillerson to his first NATO meeting and let him miss it, but send him to Russia instead.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Schultz will kick Trump out of a meeting if he engages in antics.

 

[Mahonay]

I mean, isn't the point of a national election to decide who represents the country?
He is the president of the US.
The only people not responsible for him are those who voted against him, and thats a serious minority of Americans.

Wha...wait what?

Hillary Clinton had 3 million more votes than Trump.

I mean, if you add in all of the people who didn't bother to vote, yeah, a lot of people seriously fucked up.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Can we stop with this useless "Americans are uninformed idiots" narrative? The majority of people eligible to vote didn't even vote for Trump. They don't speak for or represent all Americans, thanks. Some of us are fighting everyday against this administration.

Between the Americans who voted for Trump and the Americans who didn't vote, the majority of Americans who were eligible to vote didn't vote against Trump. I don't like it any more than you do, but the narrative is fair. Americans are uninformed idiots.

 

[frontovik]

Dirty politics as always.

NATO as it stands benefits the US most of all anyways, and its purpose ended with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Get rid of NATO and let the EU have its own self-defence force.

 

[gutter_trash]

I find it ironic that countries that were forced to become Defense only after WW2 are now getting complaints for not spending enough ... LOL

 

[kaching]

Just wait until NATO implodes and then explodes (or is explodes then implodes?) sometime this year, just because. It'll be all the Dems fault, of course. Or something.

The only people not responsible for him are those who voted against him, and thats a serious minority of Americans.

I take your general point here, but 66 million eligible US voters is not a "serious minority". It's about a quarter.

 

[Tranqueris]

Trump's method of negotiating:

Make outrageous claim
Demands money
Gets rejected
Fold immediately if it's a corporation or Russia.
Blames everyone else
Acts like it never happened.

Missed one step.

 

[Ryuuroden]

Of course he represents you.

And the majority of your electorate didn't deem it worthy of their time to prevent a mentally handicapped person from occupying the highest political office, so it's pretty generous to just call you "uninformed".

Yeah, and I am sure you have never had a leader elected who "represented" your nation but did not represent you personally. Drawing on blanket statements like that is the stuff people use to commit genocide by basing it on stereotypes from one person and blanketing it on all. Your applying tribalism to all Americans when we definitely are not all the same. If we were, there would not be so much opposition to him. We just arn't like European countries with strikes and stuff. We largely do not have mechanisms for the type of disaster Trump is when all of govt is controlled by one party. And a large part of it is because one party managed to rig the system.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

Wha...wait what?

Hillary Clinton had 3 million more votes than Trump.

I mean, if you add in all of the people who didn't bother to vote, yeah, a lot of people seriously fucked up.

It's of course including people who didn't bother to vote. They could've stopped him, they didn't.

People not responsible = People that voted for Hillary out of all the people that are eligible to vote.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

Wha...wait what?

Hillary Clinton had 3 million more votes than Trump.

I mean, if you add in all of the people who didn't bother to vote, yeah, a lot of people seriously fucked up.

Yes the people who didn't vote are included. Not voting is the same as supporting the winner. I also disagree with the idea 'most' people didn't vote for Trump. He won, everyone who didn't vote against him supported his win in just the same way

 

[RenditMan]

I find it ironic that countries that were forced to become Defense only after WW2 are now getting complaints for not spending enough ... LOL

They agreed to it.

 

[Mahonay]

It's of course including people who didn't bother to vote. They could've stopped him, they didn't.

People not responsible = People that voted for Hillary out of all the people that are eligible to vote.

I'd also say a candidate with 3 million more votes should win the election.

Our electoral system is a piece of shit that is abused heavily by Republicans with gerrymandering.

 

[Surfinn]

The majority of people eligible to vote didn't vote for the only candidate that could stop him. The majority of people eligible to vote either let Trump happen, or directly voted for him.

Yes, Hill won the popular vote -- but that's with a low voter turnout and the results weren't good enough to win for the country. That means with Trump as president, you guys own him. He very much does represent your country to the rest of the world.

Between the Americans who voted for Trump and the Americans who didn't vote, the majority of Americans who were eligible to vote didn't vote against Trump. I don't like it any more than you do, but the narrative is fair. Americans are uninformed idiots.

I think you're missing my point (next paragraph). Yes, he is the president, but a huge chunk of people did everything in our power to to make sure he didn't win.

A blanket statement like "Americans are uninformed idiots" is lazy and baseless. If someone said the same thing about another place where millions of people live, I would argue the same thing. Because it's not true. It has nothing to do with being American. It discredits and devalues good, intelligent people for no reason. It's tiring and pushes an unhelpful and unrealistic narrative.

It's not accurate to throw everyone into the category of people who are actually uninformed and idiotic.

Come on.

 

[Aselith]

They agreed to it.

To what though? Not what he's billing them for.

 

[gutter_trash]

They agreed to it.

it's just a number, it means nothing.

Keeping the peace, diplomacy and aid goes along way at detering conflicts

 

[GuessMyUserName]

Yeah, and I am sure you have never had a leader elected who "represented" your nation but did not represent you personally. Drawing on blanket statements like that is the stuff people use to commit genocide by basing it on stereotypes from one person and blanketing it on all. Your applying tribalism to all Americans when we definitely are not all the same.

I was completely ashamed of my country during our 10 years of Harper. There's no denying who represents your country.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

They agreed to it.

What exactly do you think they agreed to?

 

[RenditMan]

No one has broken the Nato treaty in any way. So no, stuff that is factually untrue does not 'need saying' by anyone

The nato budget for defence spending is suggested to be 2% of gdp per country. Who do you think set that suggestion?

I'll tell you, they all did. Just because it's a gentlemans agreement doesn't mean that you can be a twat and do wtf you like and not be called out for it.

 

[Muffin1611]

They agreed to it.

To what exactly? They agreed to the 2% amount as guideline to what they should spend. In reality it doesn't make sense for many countries to spend that much, and sense for some countries to spend more.
Only now that Russia is becoming more daring with it's actions they agreed in 2014 to take in consideration to look at the guideline again and higher their spending over the next years. Again, reaching the exact 2% is nonsensical. Highering their spending to a reasonable amount that deters Russia isn't. And Germany already committed to that.

The nato budget for defence spending is suggested to be 2% of gdp per country. Who do you think set that suggestion?

I'll tell you, they all did. Just because it's a gentlemans agreement doesn't mean that you can be a twat and do wtf you like and not be called out for it.

I think you should look up what the difference between a rule and a guideline is.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

I would like to hand trump a bill for all iraqi refugees which came to Europe after the illegal war and invasion of 2003.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Wonder when Xi Jinping hands Trump a bill what America owes China.

He probably won't do that because he's not a complete dumbass.

 

[rokkerkory]

Trump thinks he is somebig shot but all he has done is to take Ls

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Trump thinks he is somebig shot but all he has done is to take Ls

I mean, he is the President, which is the biggest W of them all for us.

 

[ebullientprism]

I wonder if this is why he was pouting like a little child in the photo op. He gave her the bill and she probably laughed in his face. "Yeah well I am not shaking your hand then! "

 

[Mahonay]

I mean, he is the President, which is the biggest W of them all for us.

 

[RenditMan]

To what exactly? They agreed to the 2% amount as guideline to what they should spend. In reality it doesn't make sense for many countries to spend that much, and sense for some countries to spend more.
Only now that Russia is becoming more daring with it's actions they agreed in 2014 to take in consideration to look at the guideline again and higher their spending over the next years. Again, reaching the exact 2% is nonsensical. Highering their spending to a reasonable amount that deters Russia isn't. And Germany already committed to that.



I think you should look up what the difference between a rule and a guideline is.

Nato sets its own guidelines, ie all the members round the table. They all agreed to those guidelines round the table and then decided not to adhere to the guidelines they'd set themselves.

 

[Muffin1611]

Nato sets its own guidelines, ie all the members round the table. They all agreed to those guidelines round the table and then decided not to adhere to the guidelines they'd set themselves.

Which is completely fair and you'd know that if you had actually read what I wrote.

 

[Surfinn]

Between the Americans who voted for Trump and the Americans who didn't vote, the majority of Americans who were eligible to vote didn't vote against Trump. I don't like it any more than you do, but the narrative is fair. Americans are uninformed idiots.

That is horrible logic. "Because lots of people didn't vote and could have voted against Trump, Americans are idiots"

.. What? So the 65M who voted for Hillary should be in this category too?

 

[Ryuuroden]

Yes the people who didn't vote are included. Not voting is the same as supporting the winner. I also disagree with the idea 'most' people didn't vote for Trump. He won, everyone who didn't vote against him supported his win in just the same way

You use that lazy excuse every time someone bad wins an election in the world. That's not how elections work. It is not even that easy to vote in America in the first place in a lot of states and there were a lot of people who were completely blocked from voting or it was made way too hard for them to register due to various situations. It's not like some places where everyone is registered and you just have to mail in a letter. Sure there were many people who had the opportunity to vote and did not but I assure you, in many essential states there were many who wanted to but did not have the opportunity even though they were eligible. Look at Pennsylvania, you can only vote there on election day and even if your a traveling worker who lives there, its still near impossible to vote absentee and you have to vote in your precinct. You have like a 12 hour window to vote but Republicans have created a living situation where many people have to work 2 jobs to get by but thats not an excuse they can use to vote absentee and they need the money. Sort term concerns matter a lot more to them at that time. In Wisconsin, voter laws were put in place that DID lower the number of people who voted in the election, there were documented cases of people who voted in past elections who were disenfranchised this election. Its not as simple as you make it out to be.

Voting is not a holiday for us. Not everyone has time to wait in multi hour lines that reducing voting locations has created in minority and democratic leaning areas in swing and moderately dem states. I mean Ohios county where the capital is located is dark blue but they split it into 3 districts, 2 republican and 1 democrat represented and the democrat one is like 90% dem while they took the rest of the dem voting areas and split them 40% each into 2 republican districts that stretch more than an hour into rural farmland. Thats how they load the House with republicans. Ohio is like 11 republicans 4 dems even though normally its votes 50/50 a lot but leans red but not by a huge amount until this election. Even though that's not the presidential election. That still contributes to the situation where Obama was blocked all the time and why extremists are elected and why Republicans control all levels of govt.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

The nato budget for defence spending is suggested to be 2% of gdp per country. Who do you think set that suggestion?

I'll tell you, they all did. Just because it's a gentlemans agreement doesn't mean that you can be a twat and do wtf you like and not be called out for it.

You haven't got your facts straight there. You might want to read this page to get some idea of how it actually works.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

 

[Earthstrike]

There's no use in having a mutual defense clause if the alliance's major members don't achieve certain spending targets to maintain defensive capabilities. To that end, without a mutual defense clause there's really no reason for NATO to exist in its current form.

I agree with this. The European powers can have a little 1% defense spending club and the US can be freed from any defense obligations.

Yep. The U.S.A can throw away all its foreign bases it has in eastern europe which were setup as well as any and all laws they influenced europe to take, including copywright extension.

Because surely the U.S.A was just defending europe out of the kindness of its own heart and not seeking its own geopolitical interests. God knows that would only take reasoning and actual knowledge of how the world works.

 

[Metroxed]

As a European, I believe we (EU member states that are part of NATO) should just leave the organisation. I think our EU treaties are more than enough to defend ourselves if it ever came to that (which I doubt).

 

[ManDudeChild]

You literally didn't read any of my post, wow

Oh i did. It simply comes across as being butthurt over how badly your people shit the bed. Didn't vote, why not? Was it a matter of 3rd party? Or maybe "they're all the same" mentality? Doesn't cut it. It wasn't till the 11th hour that the media and everyone started freaking out, by which point it was too late. So the American's were ignorant, those on the left were too busy jacking off into their echo chamber to see what was happening, and that's their fault too. At this point, only those 2nd amendment folk can save you.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

You use that lazy excuse every time someone bad wins an election in the world. That's not how elections work. It is not even that easy to vote in America in the first place in a lot of states and there were a lot of people who were completely blocked from voting or it was made way too hard for them to register due to various situations. It's not like some places where everyone is registered and you just have to mail in a letter. Sure there were many people who had the opportunity to vote and did not but I assure you, in many essential states there were many who wanted to but did not have the opportunity even though they were eligible. Look at Pennsylvania, you can only vote there on election day and even if your a traveling worker who lives there, its still near impossible to vote absentee and you have to vote in your precinct. You have like a 12 hour window to vote but Republicans have created a living situation where many people have to work 2 jobs to get by but thats not an excuse they can use to vote absentee and they need the money. Sort term concerns matter a lot more to them at that time. In Wisconsin, voter laws were put in place that DID lower the number of people who voted in the election, there were documented cases of people who voted in past elections who were disenfranchised this election. Its not as simple as you make it out to be.

Voting is not a holiday for us. Not everyone has time to wait in multi hour lines that reducing voting locations has created in minority and democratic leaning areas in swing and moderately dem states. I mean Ohios county where the capital is located is dark blue but they split it into 3 districts, 2 republican and 1 democrat represented and the democrat one is like 90% dem while they took the rest of the dem voting areas and split them 40% each into 2 republican districts that stretch more than an hour into rural farmland. Thats how they load the House with republicans. Ohio is like 11 republicans 4 dems even though normally its votes 50/50 a lot but leans red but not by a huge amount until this election.

It is literally how elections work. If it wasn't Trump wouldn't be president. This man does represent America (not you personally I understand but the country itself). That is 100% what he does and the American public 100% voted him in to do that.

It is as simple as that. If you didn't vote you supported the winner. That's not just true here but it's true for every election in every country throughout history as well. That's exactly how elections work. I understand 65M voted against him but that's not how he won. He. Did. Win. And that's because the majority of Americans supported him winning either by voting directly or by pushing their responsibility to others.

It really is how elections work

 

[Surfinn]

Oh i did. It simply comes across as being butthurt over how badly your people shit the bed. Didn't vote, why not? Was it a matter of 3rd party? Or maybe "they're all the same" mentality? Doesn't cut it. It wasn't till the 11th hour that the media and everyone started freaking out, by which point it was too late. So the American's were ignorant, those on the left were too busy jacking off into their echo chamber to see what was happening, and that's their fault too. At this point, only those 2nd amendment folk can save you.

As I said it has nothing to do with being American or even being me. If someone said "British citizens are stupid and uninformed" because of Brexit, I'd make the same point because it follows the same broken ass logic.

This weird hate boner stuff is perplexing to me. And disappointing.

So I'm butthurt because I'm pointing out how your logic is completely nonsensical and unrepresentative of reality.. Got it.

And on the flipside of this I could say that you've got a weird "it's all your faults" prejudice against Americans simply because Trump was elected. So you'd be more happy with us if the electoral college was different and the majority elected Hillary instead? Then Americans wouldn't be uninformed idiots in your eyes?

Of course he represents you.

And the majority of your electorate didn't deem it worthy of their time to prevent a mentally handicapped person from occupying the highest political office, so it's pretty generous to just call you "uninformed".

Lol I missed this one. Thanks for the laugh

 

[RenditMan]

You haven't got your facts straight there. You might want to read this page to get some idea of how it actually works.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

It's right there on that page. "Indirect Funding." 2006 the 2% of gdp figure was agreed as a measure of political will to the cause.

 

[gutter_trash]

As a European, I believe we (EU member states that are part of NATO) should just leave the organisation. I think our EU treaties are more than enough to defend ourselves if it ever came to that (which I doubt).

you are a Russian pupet for saying so

not all NATO members are EU members.

having Canada and USA on board also helps keeping the Atlantic Ocean secured

 

[Xando]

you are a Russian pupet for saying so

Atleast he can tell himself he can become american president now

 

[Mahonay]

As a European, I believe we (EU member states that are part of NATO) should just leave the organisation. I think our EU treaties are more than enough to defend ourselves if it ever came to that (which I doubt).

What EU country are you from specifically? I'm curious to get a clearer picture as to why you think this is a good idea.

 

[Biske]

He probably won't do that because he's not a complete dumbass.

It's sad when our leader is in such heated competition to be the biggest cartoon.

 

[Muffin1611]

It's right there on that page. "Indirect Funding." 2006 the 2% of gdp figure was agreed as a measure of political will to the cause.

While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains, nonetheless, an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small, but still significant, level of resources at a time of considerable international uncertainty and economic adversity.

If you'd actually read it, you'd understand why demanding a country to set their spending to exactly 2% is nonsensical. It isn't practical.

 

[guybrushfreeman]

It's right there on that page. "Indirect Funding." 2006 the 2% of gdp figure was agreed as a measure of political will to the cause.

Did you stop as soon as you thought you got your answer?

At the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:

Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure as GDP grows; and will move toward the 2% guideline within a decade.

 

[Regulus Tera]

So this is why he was so pouty