really?
can you explain?

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on Jul 8 2018 10:12am

This is an issue I think Trump is right to hammer Europe on. Just 5 of the 28 members of NATO are paying their fair share for defense (at least 2% of their GDP).

The US has been picking up the slack for European countries' defense for far too long. It's not a legally binding requirement, but European countries should be pressured to meet that 2% mark.

I get our defense sector is a low-key jobs program, but it's really about time we stop so hemorrhaging so much money for defense and sacrifice things like education and infrastructure. It's hurting our country in the long run, and we're starting to see some of the effects of being too defense-heavy now.

*reads an op-ed analysing merkel's failed immigration policy

*concludes 'even the nyt is done with her', because it's so bad right now - and clearly nothing has changed lately in terms of the whole immigration debate, right?


must be strange to live in a world that only consists of either black or white...

Sure fact is we need to get ride of U.S asap, even if it's convenient to let those idiots continue to pay most of NATO.

I agree, the situation really isn't fair on the US (or any of the countries that do meet the 2% mark). My country refuses to contribute with more than 1%, and while I understand the reasons behind it, it's imo unacceptable that we aren't getting our part of the deal done.

I'd like to see the US ditch NATO and force the European countries to form their own independent defense system. It would not only keep us out of conflicts and geopolitical issues that shouldn't concern us, but also make more apparent the need for greater European integration.

while i agree (with you and trump) that most european countries should probably be spending more on defence in general, the forced 2% of GDP (by 2024 btw, i know that #alternative facts are telling us otherwise but that doesn't change the truth) part is somewhat retarded as it largely neglects strategic requirements as primary objectives in favour of a fixed amount of money.
that way to go about it has america and defence industry written all over it.

again, i'm not saying the threats aren't real and that our current contributions are sufficient, but in my opinion there are smarter ways to go about it.
it's not europe's fault that america keeps electing leaders that are owned by lockheed martin, boeing, and northrop grumman - if they want to spend their taxes on military rather than healthcare and affordable college education that's fine - but don't start and escalate wars all over the planet to keep those industries growing and then cry about europe not paying their fair share...

Meanwhile, the UK is paying 2% of GDP on the military AND getting out of the EU

It's OK to not pay 2% of GDP on the military if you aren't relying on protection from the US and other European allies, which many NATO countries do (take the ex-satellite states, for example). It's a free-rider problem, plain and simple.

nothing has changed and if you truly believe that, you are even dumber than i thought

but hey, we might send back a handful of illegals at 3 german-austrian border crossings out of dozens, while 3 out of 4 migrants are traveling through other states to come here anyway and only if they are registered + they have not left the "transit center" already

meanwhile in reality we still get over ten thousand illegals per month, lets send a few back and the problem is solved, law and order restored



the 2% arent even the biggest problem

the german army is in such a terrible state, it will take years and many billion € to restore it to a level, where we can do anything AT ALL



sounds great as long as it does not include a "european army", which is utterly unacceptable



you can bet your ass that i have a problem with it, but enough people think otherwise

i try to stay positive, merkel wont last the rest of her term and will run germany down until there is no other option but change

This post was edited by ampoo on Jul 8 2018 01:04pm

*doesn't know what 'debate' means
*still makes ridiculous assumptions, completely ignoring that part

*calls other people 'dumb'


can't make that shit up...
and ofc no word about the ridiculous 'op-ed = stance of a whole newspaper' claim...

these "assumptions" are facts, that have been all over the press, but since you arent even able to read i am not suprised

but feel free to think that something is changing....outside of germany perhaps

damn, it was so nice and quiet here without ridiculous and deranged out of context crap from fenderp