Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump handed Merkel £300bn invoice for Nato


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Trump handed fake £300bn Nato invoice to German chancellor: report.

President Trump gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel a fake bill for NATO defenses estimated at £300 billion, The Times of London reported on Sunday. Trump reportedly handed Merkel the invoice during her trip to Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

“The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” a German minister told the newspaper.

Trump during his presidential campaign railed against the NATO alliance and has called for member countries to increase defense spending to support the organization.
Merkel “ignored the provocation,” the Times said.

Read more: The Hill

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we wait for the collective Native Americans handing Trump and invoice for, lets say; $800 septillion 1024 .

That sounds about fair.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, we should just pack our bags and exit, stage right and let the Mighty EU fend for itself. Time to kick off the training wheels. Why should Americans spend their tax dollars and the lives of their young people defending countries too cheap to defend themselves?

While i agree with the sentiment,don't we have pacts/treaties/agreements in place with some countries that they can't really "arm up" so to speak and as long as they don't we will defend them?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought she did respond, by taking in more Muslims into the heart of her demographically shifting country.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

While i agree with the sentiment,don't we have pacts/treaties/agreements in place with some countries that they can't really "arm up" so to speak and as long as they don't we will defend them?

 

What's the point of belonging to a Union if you're going to be defended by strangers? Treaties can be renegotiated or declared null and void. Being defended by the US is not an entitlement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but thats nonsense because there wasnt a bill handed over during the meeting of Merkel and #45. But it is fact that #45 claimed, after Merkel had left the WH already, that Germany has a dept of approx 350B on the NATO account. Thats nonsense as well, because there is no dept account of the NATO at all. But the interesting fact is that #45 didnt had the balls to place the claim in her presence but when she left.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

What's the point of belonging to a Union if you're going to be defended by strangers? Treaties can be renegotiated or declared null and void. Being defended by the US is not an entitlement.

As i said i'm in no way disagreeing,it's just sometimes we hear some screaming about our massive military budget but they don't take into account all the other countries we are responsible for...

Hell i'm somewhat in agreement there aswell,sure we can cut our spending in half and still be the most powerful military in the world but some will complain about us "leaveing the lil guys for Russia and China to beat up on"...Well we can't have our cake and eat it too! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Germany, but it's the last country in the world that should need foreign troops stationed it's soil and I'm tired of hearing how German people are too historically guilt-ridden, pacifist and comfortable living on their knees to mount an adequate defense of even just their own country. They should be shouldering more of the burden of Europe's defense.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

As i said i'm in no way disagreeing,it's just sometimes we hear some screaming about our massive military budget but they don't take into account all the other countries we are responsible for...

Hell i'm somewhat in agreement there aswell,sure we can cut our spending in half and still be the most powerful military in the world but some will complain about us "leaveing the lil guys for Russia and China to beat up on"...Well we can't have our cake and eat it too! ;)

Of course, our military stands to defend sanctimonious non nuclear countries who criticize our military and nuclear capability, all the while living their lives of non nuclear ease at our expense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, we should just pack our bags and exit, stage right and let the Mighty EU fend for itself. Time to kick off the training wheels. Why should Americans spend their tax dollars and the lives of their young people defending countries too cheap to defend themselves?

I agree. And they should extend this principle to the rest of the world.

I guess the question is why has America spent so much maintaining a military presence in all these places? Is it to philanthropically defend the weak nations of the world, or is there more self interest involved?

Edited by Arbenol
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

I agree. And they should extend this principle to the rest of the world.

I guess the question is why has America spent so much maintaining a military presence in all these places? Is it to philanthropically defend the weak nations of the world, or is there more self interest involved?

Both, of course, as did the British on whose domain the sun once never set. Once the self interest becomes secondary, a price must be exacted for "altruistic perseverance". Once isolated in our independence, we've grown fond and rather attached to the rest of the English speaking world and feel a stronger obligation to kith and kin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Both, of course, as did the British on whose domain the sun once never set. Once the self interest becomes secondary, a price must be exacted for "altruistic perseverance". Once isolated in our independence, we've grown fond and rather attached to the rest of the English speaking world and feel a stronger obligation to kith and kin.

Yes, but most American military presence overseas is not in the English speaking world. Their presence in Europe is a vestige of the cold war and it may be that NATO is now (or should be) obsolete. Your allies will always be allies whether you're there or not. I'm not sure that self interest has ever become secondary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10% nostalgia, many of us have our roots there, and a sense of rightness.  90% is hard logical self interest. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it.  The feeling that somebody is taking advantage of you clouds the gains and losses of the situation.

An enemy that invades Europe is likely to invade the US next.  Europe has no enemies that are not our enemies as well.  If we allow an enemy to conquer Europe and subvert all of its resources and manufacturing capability, then that enemy becomes even stronger when it is time to take on America.  It is better for the US to have a face off in Paris or London and let the damage be confined to a foreign city than New York or Chicago.

If your neighbor has a fire on his roof and a little bitty garden hose trying to put it out, you could watch and think "I told him to buy a bigger hose and a fire pump, we are far from the fire department; he deserves what he gets." Meanwhile you sit by with your big hose and pump and watch as the roof becomes a towering blaze with masses of sparks sticking to your own roof and igniting it.  By the time you get the pump going and the hose trained on the fire, it has burnt a hole in your roof.  You will have to put a tarp over the hole in your roof to keep the rain out until it is repaired, and pay for the repairs.

You could have turned on the pump and put the fire out on your neighbor's house before it started shooting up sparks.  Why have a big fire pump of you don't intend to use it?  You would have saved trouble and money plus damage to your property by doing so. If your neighbor doesn't even help, but stands watching, you  are still money ahead by putting out the fire.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

As i said i'm in no way disagreeing,it's just sometimes we hear some screaming about our massive military budget but they don't take into account all the other countries we are responsible for...

Hell i'm somewhat in agreement there aswell,sure we can cut our spending in half and still be the most powerful military in the world but some will complain about us "leaveing the lil guys for Russia and China to beat up on"...Well we can't have our cake and eat it too! ;)

To be fair to Germany. They hosted U.S. and ally troops for over 50 years and lived under the threat of nuclear and conventional war. Have they been lax in their commitment. No Have they avoided NATO responsibility? Yes!

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it? Claire whose article said Trump handed her an invoice, or toast who said he cowardly waited until she left to complain in a way guaranteed to get back to her? See how the speculations or made up facts about Trump jump all over the spectrum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, skliss said:

So which is it? Claire whose article said Trump handed her an invoice, or toast who said he cowardly waited until she left to complain in a way guaranteed to get back to her? See how the speculations or made up facts about Trump jump all over the spectrum? 

I can't believe even Trump would be so crass as to hand her an invoice, but that things like that get believed is because they are in character.  Somehow or another it is true he tried to get Germany to hand over a lot of money -- outrageous.  You can tell Merkel (and most of Germany) is now sour toward him -- as is Canada, Mexico, Britain, Australia, and most of those we usually depend on for alliance.  The man is doing massive harm to US interests.  These are sovereign countries and the US must give them the right to make their own decisions how to spend their own money.  If the Germans should invite the US out, there would be champaign popping all over Moscow.  America gains far more from German tolerance of US troops than Germany does.

By the way, the dismay at Trump in a small country like here in Cambodia you could cut with a blade of grass.  The man may be smart in some ways but he lacks civility and loves putting people down.  This is the President of the United States?!?!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skliss said:

So which is it? Claire whose article said Trump handed her an invoice, or toast who said he cowardly waited until she left to complain in a way guaranteed to get back to her? See how the speculations or made up facts about Trump jump all over the spectrum? 

What difference does it make. Donald Trump has already proven to be an ignoramus in the eye's of the world.

At least Angela Merkel took the higher road and ignored his puerile and indecorous behaviour.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, skliss said:

So which is it? Claire whose article said Trump handed her an invoice, or toast who said he cowardly waited until she left to complain in a way guaranteed to get back to her? See how the speculations or made up facts about Trump jump all over the spectrum? 

Why can't it be both?  He gave her the invoice and then when she just ignored it, he loudly complained to the media after she left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Yes, but most American military presence overseas is not in the English speaking world. Their presence in Europe is a vestige of the cold war and it may be that NATO is now (or should be) obsolete. Your allies will always be allies whether you're there or not. I'm not sure that self interest has ever become secondary.

It does if one's expectations change, are no longer fulfilled or simply become redundant or obsolete. Allies are only allies when it serves their mutual self-interests. Becoming involved in that dirty little family squabble in the Ukraine was a monumental mistake by the Obama State Department. Of it's "near abroad" to use the Russian term, Ukraine was the one with which it's history and military infrastructure were inextricably tied. It served no useful purpose for the United States  to rekindle the cold war over it. One must not make the mistake of conflating the terms  "allies" and "friendly countries". One may not necessarily or always be the other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It does if one's expectations change, are no longer fulfilled or simply become redundant or obsolete. Allies are only allies when it serves their mutual self-interests. Becoming involved in that dirty little family squabble in the Ukraine was a monumental mistake by the Obama State Department. Of it's "near abroad" to use the Russian term, Ukraine was the one with which it's history and military infrastructure were inextricably tied. It served no useful purpose for the United States  to rekindle the cold war over it. One must not make the mistake of conflating the terms  "allies" and "friendly countries". One may not necessarily or always be the other.

 

In recent years hindsight can show that an awful lot of military action overseas were a "monumental mistake". Obama is not on his own, in this regard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump did this to Israel there wouldn't be anyone piling into liking the story.  

I'd support the idea if we applied it fairly across the board and handed the greedy oil lords from Saudi Arabia and the UAE (i.e. the good Muslims) their invoice too.   It should work like a taxi service. Every time a US warship sails through the strait of Hormuz, the meter is running.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very much in the US's interest that neither Muslim powers nor China nor Russia come to dominate large parts of the world.  This is not going to be free, of either cost or lives, as we have seen these areas can be ruthless.  At least (so far) the US can be trusted to be civilized and not try to impose its hegemony the way others do, although I think if people like Trump and his supporters stay in power the world will degenerate into a bunch of competing babies fighting each other.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

In recent years hindsight can show that an awful lot of military action overseas were a "monumental mistake". Obama is not on his own, in this regard. 

A lot of things did not go ideally, but I don't see any specific mistakes that could be called monumental.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.