you cant refute anything by dodging the actual argument, in your universe perhaps, but not in the real world

does that ever work for you? dodging the argument and refusing to provide ANY facts or sources, and then just claim 'b-b-but YOU are dodging the argument!!1!'?

if it does i have to let you know those people are just having pity with you, everyone can see what you're doing here. back to your echo chamber now, screeching 'freeloaders' and 'russia will invade us' - you're clearly out of your element in a fact based discussion.

in this played out game of dodgeball you're both dodging, no ones throwing any balls. just block each other already.

Gas is so obsolete that Germany, which has moved toward green energy more than many other nations over the last 20 years, has now struck a new major deal for a direct source of gas.

Are we? I mean, we've got an army under the agreed budget. But It's not like Europe has declined the article 5 being imposed by the US, we went to Afghanistan. It's not like there was no support for the dubious invasion in Iraq. The size/budget of an army is one thing, where you use it and what it is used for is a totally different matter. The army of the US is not there to prevent attacks alone, it is there for global influence and NATO is more or less an extension of that influence. That is not only free of charge, but also buys its army tools mostly from the US. I'd say the deal has been highly beneficial for the US, even during the military cuts. but for the US to earn more money, we should buy a lot of war gear right now, which is why Trump is getting political attention on the 2% demand and "freeloading" label. The topic we are discussing right now is just Trump shaming Germany a bit more, getting more outraged over another issue to make the 2% more acceptable to agree upon, and forget about the pipeline later.

Imo most of what NATO is and should be, is a strong alliance in where countries can individually spend less on their military budget at specific times. With north western European economies getting a bit stronger, we're more able to spend a bit more, and should be thinking on how to help Greece reducing its military budget for the next two decades (which is still on the 2%).

This post was edited by Knoppie on Jul 12 2018 04:30pm

I think it's more about being able to locally defend yourselves. Or at least last long enough, w/o being overrun, before the allies get there.

Global politics is important as well, also why the 2% norm is just a number written down at a specific time.



England being an Island was probably more important than an army budget there

This post was edited by Knoppie on Jul 12 2018 04:45pm

When I look back to WWII I compare England, which did defend itself, to France which couldn't.
That war would have been a lot shorter with a lot less lives lost if France wasn't already occupied by Germany, when the allies showed up.


/e Yes politics is a great thing. But it doesn't count for a whole helluva lot when the "metal meets the meat".

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 12 2018 04:43pm

you know what, poo? maybe i was a little harsh, i admit that i assumed you understood what specific points i was refering to when i replied to your post, but maybe you really felt i dodged your 'arguments' because you just genuinely couldn't figure it out, so i did something that should help illustrate it to people who are a tad slow, i colour-coded and reduced it to one line:

poo: we are just 'freeloaders', russia could easily invade us any day
fender: europe has to spend more, but tying it to a minimum gdp percentage is stupid and not necessarily constructive - also, we have been increasing our spending for years (source)

poo: claims of election meddling and undemining democracies is the definition of brainwashed crap, adults can make their own decisions (the irony)
fender: our intelligence agencies agree that russia keeps meddling with western elections, trying to undermine our democracies (one of literally hundreds of sources provided)

poo: there is no need to sell american arms to nato members, what a 'pathetic attempt from your side' - germany can build stuff
fender: while demanding increased spending from europe, trump simultaneously advertised for american defence contractors during the nato meeting (source)

Let's play some WW II Risk. England was attacking from the northwest, Russia from the northeast. For the rest of the allies, southern France was the best spot to land. RED lines are severe mountain ranges.
If France had had enough of an army to last a while, Germany would have been overrun very quickly.