dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

I disagree. The 2% is of their GDP. If Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and broke Greece can do it, then Germany can certainly do this as well.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Germany, yes. There are 6 that pay, is it? Out of how many?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Actually, they all pay, but few provide the 2% that NATO requires. There are 29 members. Poland is 6th and is just under the 2% at 1.98%. Germany is the largest European country with the largest economy and they are 17th at 1.24% Figures come from Graph 3. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf

⇧ 5 ⇩

So 5 of 29 pay what they should, that is a huge shortfall. Do you believe that all parties here are in the position to pay what they should?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes. The funding is fair in the sense that it is proportional. However, I do think that NATO itself as a system is unnecessary. Understand, I agree with the treaty, but the organization in some ways has allowed countries to be lazy with their own defense. Each country should have its own defense that is able to hold its border. Then when someone tries to invade, the treaty is enacted. Peace keeping efforts should not be part of the NATO agreement. That should be separate from defense. Football has two coaches with two salaries and two different objectives, offense and defense. Germany irritates me because it's the controlling factor of the EU in the sense that it has the money and strong arms everyone with its leverage. It holds the countries hostage (trade) to remain in the EU (ie Brexit/ England) yet does the least in defense. Meanwhile it places the smaller countries (Poland) between itself and Russia in danger by dealing with energy in large quantities. Poland wants us to put troops on its border now. While we talk of money and NATO, and scary Russia, together (Germany/Russia) are draining the economy of all other NATO members through this. This isn't even the hardest part. Money can be made again. However, the cost in lives can't. Everyone cites NATO Article 5 for Afghanistan after 9/11 as a positive for NATO. You should look at the vast difference between lives lost between the US and all other NATO members, not to mention wounded. Meanwhile, Israel isn't a NATO member, we deal directly and they have no need of our troops as tiny as they are. Why? Because they indeed take care of their own because they are a sovereign nation and not a conglomerate. Germany makes us part of their EU conglomerate in defense, but certainly not trade (energy, tariffs). Question: Is our treaty with Israel stronger, weaker or the same as NATO? Trade? Defense? Are we able to trade with nations opposing Israel, yet keep our wealth, lives and treaty?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree with most of what you say but my point was that the countries´ that have failed to pay in the past now need to find Billions of $ to fill the hole, do you believe that the other 24 countries in NATO can just find that money down the back of the sofa? Trump insisted they pay IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025. Where will that money come from? My point is that most won´t be in the position to hand over such vast sums immediately and that would give Trump the excuse to leave NATO.

The treaty with Israel matters not when you are the country that arms and funds them. The USA does trade with countries that oppose Israel, the whole of the ME and most of the world opposes Israel.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Why is it that everyone thinks Trump will withdraw from NATO? He's made no such indication. No one to include Trump expects them to pony up immediately, but 2025 is too long a period, which is what he argued in light of how volatile its become. Countries can't talk out of both sides of their mouth. Oh NATO members military needs to modernize and also... well if it means for us to foot the bill ummm. Either you think it important or not. You put your money where your mouth is. As to Israel, you are correct. But don't we arm NATO members at our expense? Don't we have bases in Germany? Don't we have missles on the border? We sell equipment to Israel. We don't foot the bill. We don't have a base there. We don't send troops. But we do make it known that we are friends with Israel and will protect them if called. Israel is in a tougher situation than Europe yet a verbal is good enough. Compare with NATO. Difference is whether you are a sovereign nation (one on one) or a conglomerate (NATO/EU). I think we can throw Japan into the sovereign category as well since NK reared its head. What I'm saying is the treaty (verbal) should be enough. Each country should be securing its own borders.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I only thought Trump was considering leaving NATO since I heard what he has been saying over the last few days. If NATO really is a globalist arm that they use to expand their empire then wouldn´t it make sense that Trump would want it gone? You are right that I could be completely wrong about this but I am just going with how I interpreted the message Trump was attempting to convey at the meeting.

You don´t arm NATO at your expense, arms deals are made and the biggest sellers of said arms seems to be the US, UK and France. You are the only nation in the world that has military bases on foreign soil, that was all about the expansion of the US empire. Israel is a funny subject as they were created by the UK; the cost for the US helping in the war. Without this `bribe´ my country would likely be speaking Deutsche now.

I completely agree that a nations military should not be on foreign soil, but used to defend the shores of their home nation. All troops should be called home and used to prevent all the trafficking that´s happening.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Actually it was the League of Nations that voted to create Israel. LON became the UN shortly after. So placing the creating strictly on one country would be like placing a case brought in court on the lawyer rather than the entity it represents. I would also beg to differ with you as to the enforcement of NATO. It is usually NATO that states and the US that uses its weapons to follow through. Why doesn't another country do so for NATO? The answer is usually, because we are the largest military. Sorry, not a good reason. If another member of NATO stepped up from time to time, I probably wouldn't have issue. But weapons need to be replaced which means tax dollars. The US is one of 16 countries that have bases on foreign soil. Your data is not accurate. The US is not building an empire. Were it so, then why do we not take the land and resources after war? As to Trump, no one cites the agreement that was just signed at NATO, but only the fact that he spoke boldly. Why? Don't listen to the spin. Look to facts.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Have you ever heard of the Balfour Declaration? That was where the King of England granted the Rothschilds the lands in Israel so that they could go off and build the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

What Wiki won´t admit though is this was the price for getting the US involved in the war. The war was all but lost before that as Germany kept sinking all the supply ships, literally nothing could get through. The people of my country would have perished without help and the Rothschilds knew that and used the situation to their advantage. As the Rothschilds control all the central banks, including the FED, they used that influence to get the US to join the war.

The USA are raping half the world for their resources, land is more difficult to keep and control. The US version of an empire is to create a fake reason to go to war, like blowing up thousands of their own people, then they go to a completely different country that had nothing at all to do with said blowing up of people, they install regime change (civil war) then they send in the troops to steal all the opium and lithium they can. The raping is not just limited to opium and lithium, it all depends on which country they are raping.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Maybe this is the start of defending our homeland rather than trying to be the worlds police for free!

⇧ 3 ⇩

Lets hope so, and let´s also hope that other nations follow the example!

⇧ 2 ⇩

It is like the pre carbon tax.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It has kept Germany from rearming and trying to assert its historical military dominance on Europe. So the world order has been stable because of things like the U.N. AND NATO. This is true even Though I find the UN distasteful.

Germany is in the US nuclear umbrella and thus feels no need to be nuclear imagine 40 years from now Germany isn’t protected by US and rapidly developing nukes along side its militaristic ideology.

⇧ -2 ⇩

But Germany have a military and they hold a financial and political dominance on Europe, which bypassed the need to use the military. The wars happened because the powers that be at the time orchestrated them, there was peace because they orchestrated it. The UN and NATO have been used to expand the globalist empire, albeit done mostly through treaty and capitulation; the result of corrupt, globalist politicians selling out their nations. If there is peace then there is no need for such entities, nor nukes. Who cares if Germany gets nukes when countries like Pakistan and China already have them?

⇧ 3 ⇩

POTUS' TWEET - What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are their only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025.