4%? Based on what? Where did that number come from? Out of some *censored*? If Germany is taxing it's GDP at 22%, that means 4% would be 18% of it's entire federal budget. Why should Germany have to pay that much while the United States, France, Italy, or the UK does not? Do they all not have a dog in the fight? Is Germany's dog that much bigger? If so, due to geography, doesn't that mean that Germany will pay a higher price in destroyed property and killed civilians? What are you and Orange Jeezus basing your judgement of a nation's contribution to a military alliance on? Money? Doesn't always win wars. Russia had a pretty expensive military until recently. Now it's holding a steaming pile of turd.
You are being creative in your accounting again Grant. We spent 3.3% GDP on our defense last year, and do not have a bear in our backyard threatening “Armageddon” every few weeks, and a Winter fuel dependency withdrawal. If Germany cannot suspend its socialist tendencies in favor of survival, it is their political right. They are not, after all, a population of Amish, and Mennonites. Money does not always win wars, but an absence of resources absolutely does. As an aside, give the straw-man “Orange Jesus” crap a rest. You are tilting at windmills.
”If the Germans want to spend 4% of their GDP on defense, more power to them. Yeah, it probably could have helped prevent a war if the Germans had spoken up clearly and said that they would have defended Ukraine from Russian attack. But they didn't. And having 4% allocated wouldn't have made a difference, because with 2% it would have been enough. But that's up to the German people to decide. They're a democracy.”
Yes, as I said; “it is their political right”. So is national suicide, and they seem to have an enduring cultural penchant for it.
”It's not always easy to get a promise of money from a democracy, because that goes to their legislature. The Chancellor of Germany can say whatever she or he wants. If you want to get more money for defense from Germany, you need to go direct to the German people. The German people basically went pacifist after 1990. A whole generation grew up without any concept of a possible war in Europe. They were all *censored*ing wrong, but that doesn't mean the Great Declassifier was right.”
Ah, but he was right, wasn’t he?
”Dispite the difference in funds, Germany can still bring a great deal to the table to defend Europe, outside of it's budget. Germany can bring two armored divisions to bear in Europe right now. The United States cannot do that. The United States brings other things to the table quickly. In fact the United State's contributions to European defense are even higher than it's defense budget would represent. So trying to measure contributions to a war effort or a military alliance with spending is useless.”
I disagree that spending is not a reasonable measure of contribution to a war effort.
At the present time Germany is unable to drive a single diesel-powered Leopard II across the Ukrainian boarder, and the 30 Gepard anti-aircraft tanks (which they did send) initially had no application, or ammunition. The Ukrainian army recently found a use for them in taking down Iranian drones, so I suppose that is a start. It is leagues above the initial “5,000 free helmets” offer. So much for your artificially assigned value to geographic proximity. In spite of the 4,600 mile distance between New York, and Kiev, the overwhelming technical maintenance challenges, and training obstacles, there are 200 Marine M-1 A1 Abrams tanks that will likely find a home in Ukraine next year; not quite “two divisions”, but close to it.
”Cheeto Jeezus is wrong about measuring a nation's value in it's own self defense in terms of dollars. But yes, the United States has a practical obligation to defend any nation whose sovereignty is violated by another's by invasion, regardless of their value in their own self defense. Why let a hostile nation suck up a peaceful one? Doesn't sound wise. From a moral standpoint, am I not supposed to help a Quaker being mugged? Who are you? I mean, that's specifically why, morally, people want to fight wars. To defend the helpless and the powerless.”
What a tangle of equivocal double-talk. Germany is not “powerless” (yet), “Quaker”, or being “mugged”. It is aging, materialistic, self-indulgent, and wealthy by international standards.
”Yes even the foolish. That's what great power is supposed to come with. Responsibility to use it. I mean *censored*, even Spider-Man has that figured out. He didn't need a *censored*ing philosophy degree. But I guess you do need some help with that idea. I know *censored*ing Chatte Grabber doesn't understand it. He's never fought for anything but himself in his life. He doesn't defend people. He wanted Germany and ROK to pay the United States for defense. He's a *censored*ing shake-down artist. A gangster. I don't think I have a derangement. I think I can see him pretty clearly. Maybe you don't.”
Once again, you are chasing your tail. Ask me sometime what I think of Trump personally. Great powers do not enable sloth, they inspire greatness in other nations. I think Washington, and Jefferson, were excessively isolationist. John Quincy Adams struck an acceptable balance when he advised Congress on July 4, 1821, saying America “… goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
Her “own” in this context I read to mean those nations that value their independence, freedom, and put their lives where their mouths are. Ukraine meets that standard.
”No, but I'd point out that the United States has been pointing that out to Germany long before Lord T-Rex came on the scene.”
… Hardly in the way that Trump pointed it out to Angela.
No, but he is always a POS. Because you can't change that, no matter how right or wrong you are. I know some real idiots that are still better men than him
I know some very bright people that are worse than Trump regarding American interests, lots of them in fact. It is odd how that works. The important question is always; what is in the national interest, and Trump seems to have believed that the nation actually belonged to him during his presidency, and behaved to reflect that belief. I much prefer that to the dreams of a self-appointed apologist championing the politics of his Kenyan father.
