Why are Americans so autistic about the 2%?

>>75775391
Because welfare is only ok when blacks are getting it

fuck whypipo

File: 9e9.png (147KB, 850x656px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 850x656px

Because after 9/11 they realized they aren't what they were and are projecting that failure on Europe, as if we're to blame for their failure to live up to be country they want to be.
They lash out at everybody even though the current world order is their making. America made international trade what it is, america made Europe abandon having it's own foreign policy.

>>75775391
Imagine if you had a soccer or fußball game and on your team some assholes showed up without their cleats, the goalie sold his gloves to his neighbor and one of the guys isn't even wearing pants because he sold them to buy nutella. All of this inspite of previous agreements that you'd all provide your own equipment.

>>75775919
>Because after 9/11 they realized they aren't what they were and are projecting that failure on Europe
9/11 had nothing to do with conventional warfare which NATO is concerned with.

>>75775391

Because the 2.0% is considered a measurement of commitment. Even though it is a really shit one that's not driven by actual requirements, but politics.

>>75775391
pay debts

>>75776192

Sounds like a right fun group of lads desu, you need a better analogy

Maybe the US arms industry wants to sell more stuff?

>>75776307
Fine imagine your playing the premier league and it's the same scenario.

>>75776215
>9/11 had nothing to do with conventional warfare which NATO is concerned with.

That's incorrect. NATO support and invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. Other countries followed America in Iraq/Afgan under that pretense.

NATO is engaged with both matters of symmetrical (read: conventional) and asymmetrical warfare.

>>75776374
A lot of them make their own equipment.

>>75776438

Premier league players are supplied all their gear, most even get money to wear specific stuff.

>>75776486
Fine I give up maybe in the first scenario you had bet £1,000 if your team wins.

>>75776543

No dont give up lad, just try a little harder. They say 3rd times the charm after all.

>>75776453
He's talking about our failure which is more of an intelligence failure. It would make sense if he was talking about the 5eyes and not NATO.

>>75776570

I don't interpret it that way, regardless and call me asinine for it, but that doesn't change the fact of NATO engagements.

>>75776565
No I give up. I'm trading my cleats for a pint.

One things beckoned on me, Trump is a phenomenal negotiator regardless of his 'follies' everyone talks about

He's pressured the Arabs and Egypt into isolating Qatar and Iran
China into removing NK's primary source of foreign revenue
Acquisition of infrastructure development money by allowing marginal remilitarization of Japan

Hopefully he can force the Shitslamist brotherhood here to end internal wars and enforce a proper development plan besides state-sanctioned theft

>>75776476

F-35 bro

>>75775391
Most of them, I have no idea. Donald, though, it's obvious. He sees himself as the personification of his nation, and he's mad that he's not being "obeyed".

>>75775391
wer braucht die Amis? Keiner

because they realized with iraq, afghanistan, and the intervention against ISIS that their allies cant carry any weight in missions.

>>75775391
>Why do people like money and why do they not like it when their club mates don't want to pay their fair share for the drink bill?

>>75775391
pay debnts

>>75775391
Well once i saw german complaining about autism i saw everything

>>75780710
That's what I'm trying to say, dumb greek.

>>75775391
The whole thing is a complex topic. Read this as an introduction:
http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

>>75776192
Bad analogy is bad.
Firstly, there are literally no binding agreements on what is to be spent. Even the Wales declaration is non-binding. Iceland e.g. doesn't even have a military and never gets called out on it.
Secondly, even if we consider the rest of the analogy accurate (which it isn't) it's still irrelevant as there's no schedule of games that needs to be played. The team only comes together when necessity arises. That happened exactly one time in all of NATO's history: after 9/11. And it meant all members came to the help of the US. And it was btw a misuse of the military force as fighting terror is a task for police forces not the military. Hence the quagmire and lack of tangible results.
Thirdly, that some team members don't have their equipment at hand is completely irrelevant since even in this state there is no other team in the world that dares to challenge this team and no team that even comes close to the capabilities of the NATO team.

This then reveals the true desire behind the 2% demands of the US. It's not to better fulfill NATO's mission. That's being fulfilled perfectly. It's to free up US resources for their own private imperial ambitions. But IMO they should pay for that themselves. NATO is a defensive alliance and has secured the territorial integrity of it's members from outside threats with a perfect record. It doesn't need to do more. If some US politicians want to engage in imperialism under the guise of world police, let em tell their taxpayers the truth instead of this burden sharing bullshit that has nothing to do with NATO.

only fatties like 2%. the successful, working man drinks fat free

>>75782030
>This then reveals the true desire behind the 2% demands of the US. It's not to better fulfill NATO's mission. That's being fulfilled perfectly. It's to free up US resources for their own private imperial ambitions
Or to free up money to spend on our friends in Asia (you sure as shit won't hear Japan or South Korea bitching about having to meet spending goals for defense), or to free up money that could be spent domestically on infrastructure, health care, and education...
If Europeans aren't going to take their security seriously, then why should we?

>>75783713
>you sure as shit won't hear Japan or South Korea bitching about having to meet spending goals for defense
You'd better look up what Japan actually spends in terms of % of GDP.
SK is another matter but they have good reason.

>to free up money that could be spent domestically on infrastructure, health care, and education...
In your dreams. Your military is your welfare system under the guise of masculine posturing. And your streets are shit because you haven't raised taxes on gasoline for a very long time, not because of your supposed military obligations.

>If Europeans aren't going to take their security seriously, then why should we?
If you hadn't we wouldn't have a million+ refugees from Syria and Iraq now. So this recent change would be welcomed here.

>>75784078
>You'd better look up what Japan actually spends in terms of % of GDP.
Japan spends 1% of its GDP but continues to increase that number. It's unfair to compare a country actually trying to reach a goal with one that continues to autistically rail against it.

>If you hadn't we wouldn't have a million+ refugees from Syria and Iraq now. So this recent change would be welcomed here.
We didn't tell you to let them in without proper vetting. You're the ones who did this to yourselves.

>>75784244
>Japan spends 1% of its GDP but continues to increase that number. It's unfair to compare a country actually trying to reach a goal with one that continues to autistically rail against it.
So they spend .2 percentage points less than Germany, or 20 percent less. But feel free to hand out as many "you tried" ribbons as you like if that makes you happy and if you think that frees up resources in your federal budget.

>We didn't tell you to let them in without proper vetting. You're the ones who did this to yourselves.
Your dismantling of the Iraqi state caused the whole thing. There wouldn't be any refugees. We took them in order to not let the Balkans slide down into yet another religious-ethnic conflict. This was our European responsibility which we Germans shouldered almost alone. But the root cause is entirely your's. And you did so by violating international law on top of that. Which caused huge problems by setting a precedent. Russia's grab of Georgian and Ukranian lands would also not have been possible without this bullshit "coalition of the willing" which was just code for "if our closest allies aren't with us we'll fuck the law and do what we please". Which of course everybody could see clearly and refer to in their own actions.

>>75784600
Are you implying that Russia would have never tried to take back parts of Georgia and Ukraine if the US invasion of Iraq hadn't occurred?

Because that's retarded, even for a German.

>>75784783
Just listen to how Russia justifies its actions. Literally their entire foreign policy uses US actions as a yardstick. You may complain about whataboutisms but you also give them plenty reason to use them and make it really easy for them.

>>75784890
Last time the us annexed land was over 100 years ago. You're grasping for straws

>>75776790
>He's pressured the Arabs and Egypt into isolating Qatar and Iran
It's the other way around, doc. Because Trump administration can't keep its allies together, the Saudis smelled weakness and decided to act against Qatar

>>75785245
I'm not saying they are equivalent actions. I'm saying US violation of international law serves as justification for Russian violation of international law.
And of course each country has its own narratives of why this was necessary but all of them are bullshit, both the US and the Russian narrative.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's the same. I'm not making a moral equivalency. What I am saying though is that you make it exceptionally hard for all of us to tackle them because you lost the moral high ground with your own actions. And you have very very little to show for.

>>75785416
The US has kept peace in the world for 70 years. Russia has a history of gulags and destroying countries

>>75785472
Yes and then you essentially bled what was to become the American century into the deserts of the Middle East. What a huge blunder.

>>75784783
Not him, but Russia wouldn't have started shit in Georgia or Ukraine if they didn't feel threatend by NATO.
Russia doesn't act out of a position of power, but out of position of weakness

>>75785519
Not really. Only one real anti American country left in the middle East.

>>75785810
Dude, it's not about that. These countries could never threaten you in the first place, except with terrorism, i.e. the weapon of the weak. But as I already said that's a job for police forces and intelligence services, not the military. You need a scalpel not a broad axe.

But all this had consequences. Your middle class wages have stagnated or shrunk in real terms since Iraq becase it has cost you so much. And it didn't give you anything substantial in return. This comes from bad leadership. And your current administration is bound make mistakes even graver than that one.

>>75782030
What exactly is wrong about America wanting to free up their own resources for their own imperial ambitions instead of babysitting us?
And what exactly is wrong with expecting every member of a defensive alliance to contribute to said defence?

If anything, and you felt inclined to paint the evil amerikkka picture, you should point out that as long as eastern allies are toothless, impotent wimps that are incapable of defending territories of their own countries and rely exclusively on US military, economic and geopolitical might to keep themselves secure, they will be much more susceptible to polite requests from US when it comes to diplomacy and foreign relations and pressuring them into build up their defensive capabilities will diminish influence US can muster, possibly in more ways than one.

>>75786016
suffering of middle class is result of post-reagan economic ideology, not of their military adventures.

>>75786066
>What exactly is wrong about America wanting to free up their own resources for their own imperial ambitions instead of babysitting us?
Not him, but sure, Americans can do it, but they can't expect to have the same influence in Europe if we don't really have to rely on their military anymore

>>75786066
>What exactly is wrong about America wanting to free up their own resources for their own imperial ambitions instead of babysitting us?
Apart from what this does to destabilize various regions around the world, nothing. They should just pay for it themselves.

>And what exactly is wrong with expecting every member of a defensive alliance to contribute to said defence?
Nothing. But NATO is very well defended as it is even with the cuts from the peace dividend. It has no rival. The 2% figure is precisely not for enabling defense. NATO has no lack of defense.

>>75786223
Not really. Even though Reaganomics contributed to wealth concentration at the very top it didn't cut off the middle class from economic development. That's what the Iraq war and the housing bubble did.

>>75786305
>Apart from what this does to destabilize various regions around the world, nothing. They should just pay for it themselves.
They do pay for it themselves. It's not like they are forcing any of the NATO members to join them on those interventions.
Although I am inclined to agree that they should be much more responsible when it comes to dealing with fallout of those intrusions as they tend to produce a lot of, callously put, negative externalities for others, EU included.

>NATO is very well defended
Because USA is footing the bill. Granted they have reasons other than altruism for it, but gotta give credit where it's due.

>>75786016
No the middle East is key to controlling Europe. Or are you too dense to grasp that

>>75786443
Housing bubble is product of pathological policy that can be tracked to the aforementioned economical ideology.
Resources expended on Iraq and other wars could be presumably spent on public investment or just allow general prosperity, but that's just an optimistic case. And one that's assuming that without interventions middle east would've been stable, which is not to be taken for granted.

>>75786529
>They do pay for it themselves. It's not like they are forcing any of the NATO members to join them on those interventions.
Yes, but they'd like to spend more without increasing their budget and use the discussion about 2% as a means to this end under the guise of defending NATO.

>Because USA is footing the bill.
lol no. Every single NATO member, including the US, could spend 1% of its GDP on defense and there would still be no rival. We all would still be perfectly secure from other countries or coalitions. They're footing the bill for their own ambitions yet act like all their spending it to provide Europe's security. Which is blatant bullshit.

>>75786636
The Middle East is rather unimportant and was doing fine (or shitty compared to the West) during the entire Cold War without ever posing a threat to Europe. The days when the Turks stood before Vienna are long gone. The power balance is so far in favor of the West it's not even funny.

>>75786841
Yeah you just need to stop posting. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about

>>75786654
>Housing bubble is product of pathological policy that can be tracked to the aforementioned economical ideology.
The fact that Bush needed the economy rolling to finance his war contributed significantly to the lax oversight. There were enough warning voices regarding the real estate market as far back as 2003/2004. But they thought they couldn't afford to curb that juicy looking growth.

In fact, advances in economic research enabled the FED to carry out more efficient policies. Before the 80s the US economy had a recession every couple of years. Since then they just had two minor ones and the big one which was directly connected to financing the war in Iraq.

>>75786936
You have all the space in the world here to enlighten us. Feel free to post your valuable insights.

>>75787144
It's about controlling to flow of oil and gas into europe dumbass. Or did you think France started up shit with Libya over nothing

>>75787244
Lol the oil was flowing regardless of whether Saddam was in power or not. It even flows from ISIS territories. There was literally zero reason to invade Iraq except for whatever hallucinations Bush had in his head and whatever schemes Cheney had planned.

>>75787427
Yeah you are too dumb to grasp this

we should just leave NATO and team up with Putin for maximum butthurt.

>>75787484
Show any proof, anything that supports a danger of oil supply to Europe because Saddam was to stay in power.
You're simply making stuff up.

>>75787594
>German intelligence

>>75787848
Saddam was even changing the oil pricing to euros instead of dollars. So you tell me how this threatened the oil supply to Europe.
And there are some people who believe that this was the actual reason of the US invasion.

Strange, the Butthurt Belt have no problem meeting their quotas but the rich Western European cunts can't be bothered.

>>75775391
I don't much care for the Americans but you lot are the definition of leeches. If you don't like it then feel free to fuck off and leave.