Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 12 Jul 2018 22:37)

To be honest im ready to have my country to pay 4% gdp for military, but certainly not with USA@Nato.
The "new and real" world order is to switch between china/russia/usa as a third party and taking advantage of it, end of story.

Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 12 Jul 2018 21:37)

To be honest im ready to have my country to pay 4% gdp for military, but certainly not with USA@Nato.
The "new and real" world order is to switch between china/russia/usa as a third party and taking advantage of it, end of story.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 12 Jul 2018 21:43)

russia will never become a big power player again. they have 140m people and an economy the size of italy. dont get fooled by their nukes and their willingness to invest more of their gdp into the military than most western countries - even if they wanted to, they simply dont have the capacities to challenge the EU, the US or China. also keep in mind that Russia and China have historically never trusted each other and been rivals rather than allies most of the time. and they have unresolved territorial disputes in far east siberia, where almost all the population is on the chinese side and almost all the natural ressources are on the russian side. as soon as russia would overextend in conflicts in the west or the middle east, china would happily invade parts of that region.

Quote (Scaly @ Jul 12 2018 02:35pm)

Just had fish n chips for dinner. Bloody lovely.

I agree with you in some instances. But it really does depend on the fish and how it's cooked/served. Tuna salad? Yea. Tuna steak? No.
I just had a side of haddock and it was very meaty. Super tasty.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 12 2018 02:26pm)

trying to break into a new market ...with, as you correctly stated in your opening post, a more expensive product...

so what you're saying is that Germany/western europe should pay a higher price for their gas than necessary (by importing the more expensive american LNG instead of cheap russian gas), to further the american geopolitical agenda?
and what you're saying also implies that you want to use state/political interventions into a market to force customers to buy the less competitive product, doesnt it? how does that fit together with the free market doctrine?


----

in the end, both trump and merkel are right on one point and wrong on another one:

trump is right that Germany should spend 2% of its GDP on its - already underfinanced and broken down - military, as agreed upon with the NATO and as is necessary so that Germany carries its weight in the NATO.
merkel is right that Germany is a sovereign country and can and will buy its gas from whoever the fuck it wants.

Quote (fender @ 12 Jul 2018 20:47)

the problem with your 'argument', dear am-poo, is that i already agreed we probably should be paying more - but i also stated that a fix percentage of GDP target is a very idiotic and american way to go about it since it prioritises a budget goal over achieving strategic requirements. i also criticised that much of the real and perceived threats to NATO stem from america's aggressive world policing and war mongering, hence they should not complain about the financial burden that comes with it. after all, it is THEIR companies (mainly fossil fuel / mining / 'defence') that reap the main benefits of it. again, it's not europe's fault that americans keep electing politicians owned by the industries that push for military conflicts. just consider this: due to our geographical situation and the fact that america just closes its borders, WE have to deal with the waves of immigrants, so where is our compensation for that? i don't see you or any other member of the trump cult complaining about the financial drawbacks of that, and how the lack of american solidarity is endangering our alliance. strange...

you correctly mentioned that this has been a source of conflict and negotiations for quite a while now - and if you were able to see the world a bit more nuanced you'd realise that many, if not most people aren't saying 'but... but trump is wrong, europe shouldn't pay more', but rather that trump's bull in a china shop behaviour is entirely counter-productive and completely inadequate. if you really think that his retarded accusations loaded with falsehoods, lies, propaganda, and the financial interests of his donors are somehow magically solving the issue and stabilising the alliance you're not only mistaken but probably not completely sane anymore. putin is probably celebrating right now about the massive division in our trans-atlantic partnership, and only a complete fool would claim this is europe's fault, that it's europe that has been antagonising america every possible way...

how could an even halfway reasonable person claim the real problem threatening nato is that many european members are somewhat hesitant with their military budget (after all we have populations that are a bit more civilised, we like our healthcare and affordable college, and we don't just support every war), but trump publicly and aggressively attacking his closest allies and questioning nato's relevance is completely fine? i get that uninformed simpletons who grew up in a borderline jingoistic society over there would fall for such narratives, but europeans living in free and enlightened societies? this really is a cult, there is no way around it...

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 12 Jul 2018 22:43)

russia will never become a big power player again. they have 140m people and an economy the size of italy. dont get fooled by their nukes and their willingness to invest more of their gdp into the military than most western countries - even if they wanted to, they simply dont have the capacities to challenge the EU, the US or China. also keep in mind that Russia and China have historically never trusted each other and been rivals rather than allies most of the time. and they have unresolved territorial disputes in far east siberia, where almost all the population is on the chinese side and almost all the natural ressources are on the russian side. as soon as russia would overextend in conflicts in the west or the middle east, china would happily invade parts of that region.

Quote (fender @ 12 Jul 2018 22:55)

that 4% target is absolutely ridiculous, the 2% are already insanely high. if germany spent 4% of its GDP on defence, we alone would have a military budget that's more than TWICE as high as russia's, rivaling china's - i'm sure this would totally not lead to another arms race and our neighbours would be completely comfortable with it...

again, the minimum spending approach is idiotic as it implies that potential threats increase and decrease based on the productivity of your economy. i'm not against spending more and meeting realistic strategic targets, but this whole discussion is a clear attempt to benefit the american arms industry, emperor bonespur even openly advertised to buy rockets and guns from his owners. how brainwashed would a person have to be not to realise that, or even call their own country 'freeloaders' for not buying into the military hysteria...

isn't it funny how when all our intelligence agencies say that russia is meddling with western elections, trying to undermine our democracies, and divide our societies, the right wing goes: 'russia is a nothingburger, putin did nothing wrong, you're just making excuses for losing elections' - but when the emperor says 'buy more weapons, spend more on military' the cult goes 'oh my god, russia is about to invade everyone and there's nothing we can do if we don't make daddy's donors even richer right fucking now!!!11!1!'

Quote

that russia is meddling with western elections, trying to undermine our democracies, and divide our societies

Quote (ampoo @ 12 Jul 2018 22:45)

long story short, dodged all arguments, uses ridiculous exaggerations that have not been posted as an "argument", not to mention that nobody stated that spending isnt increasing (while the argument is that its nowhere near enough)

business as usual, but we are all used to it fenderp

post fact world indeed