Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel

President estimated Germany’s underspend on alliance over the past 12 years, then added interest

Angela Merkel will reportedly ignore Donald Trump’s attempts to extricate £300bn from Germany for what he deems to be owed contributions to Nato.

The US President is said to have had an “invoice” printed out outlining the sum estimated by his aides as covering Germany’s unpaid contributions for defence.

Said to be presented during private talks in Washington, the move has been met with criticism from German and Nato officials.

While the figure presented to the Germans was not revealed by either side, Nato countries pledged in 2014 to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence, something only a handful of nations – including the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia – currently do.

But the bill has been backdated even further to 2002, the year Mrs Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, pledged to spend more on defence.

Mr Trump reportedly instructed aides to calculate how much German spending fell below two per cent over the past 12 years, then added interest.

Estimates suggest the total came to £300bn, with official figures citing the shortfall to be around £250bn plus £50bn in interest added on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 50636.html

Nice!

What an idiot.

NATO countries are under commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024.

No NATO country is currently obligated to spend that now. And, certainly not to the US.

Skjellyfetti wrote:What an idiot.

NATO countries are under commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024.

No NATO country is currently obligated to spend that now. And, certainly not to the US.

But haven't they underspent in general compared to us?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they owe us $300 billion.

2015:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/03/news/do ... index.html

BDKJMU wrote:2015:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/03/news/do ... index.html

****in Canucks.

Straw man

The "bill" was obviously a metaphor. Germany has not pulled their load in NATO, and they have in fact been spending below the 2% of GDP since Schroeder made the initial commitment back around 2002. The 2012-ish agreement was an "Our bad, we really promise to contribute now" deal.

Trump has correctly identified a major problem with NATO. Giving Merkel a "bill" was a way for putting Germany on notice but only a moron would think it was an actual payment we are expecting.

Merkel is trying to use the pacifist route as an excuse for Germany not pulling its weight. I see what Trump did as a way to let them know that we expect them to uphold their obligations. The next step will be to renegotiate the charter, and quite frankly I hope we do that. I'm in favor of a full withdrawal so I could personally care less about the optics of what Trump did.

NATO needs us. We don't need NATO. Period.

CID1990 wrote:Straw man

The "bill" was obviously a metaphor. Germany has not pulled their load in NATO, and they have in fact been spending below the 2% of GDP since Schroeder made the initial commitment back around 2002. The 2012-ish agreement was an "Our bad, we really promise to contribute now" deal.

Trump has correctly identified a major problem with NATO. Giving Merkel a "bill" was a way for putting Germany on notice but only a moron would think it was an actual payment we are expecting.

Merkel is trying to use the pacifist route as an excuse for Germany not pulling its weight. I see what Trump did as a way to let them know that we expect them to uphold their obligations. The next step will be to renegotiate the charter, and quite frankly I hope we do that. I'm in favor of a full withdrawal so I could personally care less about the optics of what Trump did.

NATO needs us. We don't need NATO. Period.

That's where I was going. You don't start negotiating with the number you hope it will end up at.

This is certainly one area where president Trump is spot on...
We have only ourselves to blame for what we spend on NATO
and shaming then is fine but we still need to slowly back away

Chizzang wrote:This is certainly one area where president Trump is spot on...
We have only ourselves to blame for what we spend on NATO
and shaming then is fine but we still need to slowly back away

If slowly isn't possible I can think of a couple other adverbs



Abruptly

Quickly

CID1990 wrote:Straw man

The "bill" was obviously a metaphor. Germany has not pulled their load in NATO, and they have in fact been spending below the 2% of GDP since Schroeder made the initial commitment back around 2002. The 2012-ish agreement was an "Our bad, we really promise to contribute now" deal.

Trump has correctly identified a major problem with NATO. Giving Merkel a "bill" was a way for putting Germany on notice but only a moron would think it was an actual payment we are expecting.

Merkel is trying to use the pacifist route as an excuse for Germany not pulling its weight. I see what Trump did as a way to let them know that we expect them to uphold their obligations. The next step will be to renegotiate the charter, and quite frankly I hope we do that. I'm in favor of a full withdrawal so I could personally care less about the optics of what Trump did.

NATO needs us. We don't need NATO. Period.

This, and while he is at it, send the UN a bill too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BDKJMU wrote:2015:


http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/03/news/do ... index.html

Did NATO really get that much from Greece?

SeattleGriz wrote: Did NATO really get that much from Greece?

AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP.

Their GDP is shit.

Chizzang wrote:This is certainly one area where president Trump is spot on...
We have only ourselves to blame for what we spend on NATO
and shaming then is fine but we still need to slowly back away

I don't think we are spending on NATO per se. I think we are spending what we spend on the military in our own self interest. We are exerting influence. And we get to have bases all over the place in order to do that.

I think that, if all the other countries in NATO said, "Fine, United States. We're dissolving NATO. Get all your bases, materials, and troops out of our countries" we would be horrified. Of course they wouldn't do that because they have an interest in maintaining the situation as well.

But we're not spending what we spend on our military because NATO makes us. We're doing that because we want to. We can argue about whether we should want to spend as much as we do on the military as we do. But we're not doing it because of NATO. In fact without NATO we might be spending more.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:This is certainly one area where president Trump is spot on...
We have only ourselves to blame for what we spend on NATO
and shaming then is fine but we still need to slowly back away

If slowly isn't possible I can think of a couple other adverbs



Abruptly

Quickly

Immediately

Post Haste

Pronto

ASAP

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
If slowly isn't possible I can think of a couple other adverbs



Abruptly

Quickly

Immediately

Post Haste

Pronto

ASAP

Toot Sweet

Like a bat outta hell

Like gluten through kalm

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:This is certainly one area where president Trump is spot on...
We have only ourselves to blame for what we spend on NATO
and shaming then is fine but we still need to slowly back away

I don't think we are spending on NATO per se. I think we are spending what we spend on the military in our own self interest. We are exerting influence. And we get to have bases all over the place in order to do that.

I think that, if all the other countries in NATO said, "Fine, United States. We're dissolving NATO. Get all your bases, materials, and troops out of our countries" we would be horrified. Of course they wouldn't do that because they have an interest in maintaining the situation as well.

But we're not spending what we spend on our military because NATO makes us. We're doing that because we want to. We can argue about whether we should want to spend as much as we do on the military as we do. But we're not doing it because of NATO. In fact without NATO we might be spending more.

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

CAA Flagship wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote: Did NATO really get that much from Greece?

AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP.

Their GDP is shit.

Lazy Mediterranean trash.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Straw man

The "bill" was obviously a metaphor. Germany has not pulled their load in NATO, and they have in fact been spending below the 2% of GDP since Schroeder made the initial commitment back around 2002. The 2012-ish agreement was an "Our bad, we really promise to contribute now" deal.

Trump has correctly identified a major problem with NATO. Giving Merkel a "bill" was a way for putting Germany on notice but only a moron would think it was an actual payment we are expecting.

Merkel is trying to use the pacifist route as an excuse for Germany not pulling its weight. I see what Trump did as a way to let them know that we expect them to uphold their obligations. The next step will be to renegotiate the charter, and quite frankly I hope we do that. I'm in favor of a full withdrawal so I could personally care less about the optics of what Trump did.

NATO needs us. We don't need NATO. Period.

That's where I was going. You don't start negotiating with the number you hope it will end up at.

Entertaining ploy by Trump, earns some creativity points for sure.

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't think we are spending on NATO per se. I think we are spending what we spend on the military in our own self interest. We are exerting influence. And we get to have bases all over the place in order to do that.

I think that, if all the other countries in NATO said, "Fine, United States. We're dissolving NATO. Get all your bases, materials, and troops out of our countries" we would be horrified. Of course they wouldn't do that because they have an interest in maintaining the situation as well.

But we're not spending what we spend on our military because NATO makes us. We're doing that because we want to. We can argue about whether we should want to spend as much as we do on the military as we do. But we're not doing it because of NATO. In fact without NATO we might be spending more.

You never fail to miss the point JSO

It isn't the military expenditures that make NATO bad for America

NATO is the very definition of an entangling alliance - when the belief that the aim of the Soviet Union was to dominate the globe via state communism (and did nothing to dispel that belief) then NATO made sense to a degree

It no longer does, and now we are bound by treaty to enter a war between Russia and any number of European countries that do not take their own defense seriously. Or Turkey. Take your pick. Germany has the ability to individually defend the continent and they choose not to. Germany could surpass Russia in military capabilities within 5-10 years if they wanted to. That right there is why we should pull out

CAA Flagship wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote: Did NATO really get that much from Greece?

AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP.

Their GDP is shit.

I saw that is was a %, just curious as Greece hasn't seemed to pay any bills the last couple of years.

SeattleGriz wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP.

Their GDP is shit.

I saw that is was a %, just curious as Greece hasn't seemed to pay any bills the last couple of years.

Here is the GDP stats for Greece. Scroll down to see comparison with other countries. 2% isn't enough to defend themselves from a family of alligators invading their shores.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp

Low-brow move by the Manhattan Hillbilly.

I believe the NATO 2% has to be put in context. They likely spend a similar percentage as the US for readiness, training and operations. America spends more deploying our 'special interests' (nod-nod, wink-wink), and that's what NATO is pretty much all about. It begins with a B and ends with a 61. We're spending a lot on that.

And, a lot on 'overseas contingency operations,' R&D and procurement <---- BINGO!

We want them to spend more 'procure-ing' our stuff. We make some good stuff.

Aho Old Guy wrote:Low-brow move by the Manhattan Hillbilly.

I believe the NATO 2% has to be put in context. They likely spend a similar percentage as the US for readiness, training and operations. America spends more deploying our 'special interests' (nod-nod, wink-wink), and that's what NATO is pretty much all about. It begins with a B and ends with a 61. We're spending a lot on that.

And, a lot on 'overseas contingency operations,' R&D and procurement <---- BINGO!

We want them to spend more 'procure-ing' our stuff. We make some good stuff.

They don't. Germany and other countries put their eggs in the operational basket and little else. They have zero support and logistics, and no transport. They (and the rest of NATO) depend entirely on us for moving their crap around and putting gas in it.

And if our goal is money for Northrop Grumman, then we should be pulling out if NATO entirely. Defense stocks would double the next day.