France & Germany still DO NOT PAY their NATO obligations - a middle finger to Ukraine

Appeasement worked well in World War II, didn't it? Good grief do they not even know anything about history? Don't answer, it's rhetorical.

It wouldn't be better if they were intentional liars, but in this case, the Trumper is actually stupid.
 
2 greedy European economic power houses. :palm:
Why won't Europe pay for its own defense?


"Two founding states – France and Germany – both missed the mark at 1.9% and 1.57%, despite being economic leaders in the alliance."

Countries that refuse to pay up ... and demand Americans foot the bill ...
France (1.9 %)
Montenegro (1.87 %)
North Macedonia (1.87 %)
Bulgaria (1.84 %)
Croatia (1.79 %)
Albania (1.76 %)
Netherlands (1.7 %)
Norway (1.67 %)
Denmark (1.65 %)
Germany (1.57 %)
Czech Republic (1.5 %)
Portugal (1.48 %)
Italy (1.46 %)
Canada (1.38 %)
Slovenia (1.35 %)
Turkey (1.31 %)
Spain (1.26 %)
Belgium (1.26 %)

https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/13/map-...ail-reach-2-minimum-spending-budget-20269340/

Did crazy Trump tell you that?????
 
I didn't quote anything out of context. You just keep repeating yourself because you've once again lost a debate that you weren't qualified to participate in.

Just as the 2% is discretionary, ... the amount of military we choose to send is discretionary. No where in the treaty does it set an amount.
 
Last edited:
You are welcome to try and prove the numbers wrong. No one is stopping you.

You not understand the numbers. The US is not paying for anything because some members are not assigning 2 percent of their GDP to the military. Right now they are helping Ukraine while the Repub party continues to work for Trump\Putin. The idea that you say that 1.9 percent is not standing up is ridiculous. Putin and Trump are working to destroy NATO. So are you in your own puerile way. GDP is huge and can be parsed in many ways. I am sure the countries that are close can show figures that show they comply.
This was a typical BS right-wing thread that is a shot at NATO allies.
 
2 greedy European economic power houses. :palm:
Why won't Europe pay for its own defense?


"Two founding states – France and Germany – both missed the mark at 1.9% and 1.57%, despite being economic leaders in the alliance."

Countries that refuse to pay up ... and demand Americans foot the bill ...
France (1.9 %)
Montenegro (1.87 %)
North Macedonia (1.87 %)
Bulgaria (1.84 %)
Croatia (1.79 %)
Albania (1.76 %)
Netherlands (1.7 %)
Norway (1.67 %)
Denmark (1.65 %)
Germany (1.57 %)
Czech Republic (1.5 %)
Portugal (1.48 %)
Italy (1.46 %)
Canada (1.38 %)
Slovenia (1.35 %)
Turkey (1.31 %)
Spain (1.26 %)
Belgium (1.26 %)

https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/13/map-...ail-reach-2-minimum-spending-budget-20269340/
Bullshit hate Nazi crap.
 
Appeasement worked well in World War II, didn't it? Good grief do they not even know anything about history? Don't answer, it's rhetorical.

Chamberlain was the saviour of the UK but you Septics are far too stupid to know that!!

From Quora:

Back in 1935 and Chamberlain started pressurising for an increased defence budget, in response to the Imperial General Staffs 1934 revision of the likelihood of a war within the next 10 years being recast as “likely”
In the 1936 Budget he was roundly attacked as “scaremongering” when he drastically increased the defence budget again.

Those budgets provided the very things that Churchill depended on for survival in 1940, the Chain Home Radar system, Dowding's Integrated Air Defence System and the Spitfire are the obvious ones.

What gets lost is the myriad of subtle changes he also made, the Government funding of a Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich, the “Shadow Factory” system he forced through (where major arms companies were made to show other companies how to make components in wartime so that production could be ramped up quickly - by war's end, BSA in Birmingham had over 160 Shadows making components for them)

He had the rationing system designed and books pre-printed and the organisation behind it set up, distributed a gas mask to every man woman and child in the country.
He tried hard to arrange an anti-German alliance of the UK, France, Poland and Russia, that failed as the Poles would not countenance Russian Troops entering their country if they were attacked by Germany.

What is supremely ironic is that
Churchill had the gall to complain Britain was unprepared for war, when he was the one who helped put us there.
 
Last edited:
Chamberlain was the saviour of the UK but you Septics are far too stupid to know that!!

From Quora:

Back in 1935 and Chamberlain started pressurising for an increased defence budget, in response to the Imperial General Staffs 1934 revision of the likelihood of a war within the next 10 years being recast as “likely”
In the 1936 Budget he was roundly attacked as “scaremongering” when he drastically increased the defence budget again.

Those budgets provided the very things that Churchill depended on for survival in 1940, the Chain Home Radar system, Dowding's Integrated Air Defence System and the Spitfire are the obvious ones.

What gets lost is the myriad of subtle changes he also made, the Government funding of a Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich, the “Shadow Factory” system he forced through (where major arms companies were made to show other companies how to make components in wartime so that production could be ramped up quickly - by war's end, BSA in Birmingham had over 160 Shadows making components for them)

He had the rationing system designed and books pre-printed and the organisation behind it set up, distributed a gas mask to every man woman and child in the country.
He tried hard to arrange an anti-German alliance of the UK, France, Poland and Russia, that failed as the Poles would not countenance Russian Troops entering their country if they were attacked by Germany.

What is supremely ironic is that
Churchill had the gall to complain Britain was unprepared for war, when he was the one who helped put us there.

Your stunning lack of knowledge regarding chamberlain’s appeasement policy is matched only by your dishonesty. Absolutely stunning. Quira is no different than this site…. anyone can say anything. But you knew this. No wonder you can’t go to the UK. Dishonest and stupid.
 
Your stunning lack of knowledge regarding chamberlain’s appeasement policy is matched only by your dishonesty. Absolutely stunning. Quira is no different than this site…. anyone can say anything. But you knew this. No wonder you can’t go to the UK. Dishonest and stupid.

You're truly stupendously ignorant, I almost feel sorry for you. He had no choice but to go along with Hitler as he needed to buy time before the inevitability of war, smart people know this whilst fools like you just spout bullshit.

Flying through blue sky towards London, the Luftwaffe crews were in a confident mood. It was 15 September 1940 and their commanders had told them that, after weeks of intensive combat, the RAF was all but beaten.

Even when the first British fighter planes appeared on the horizon, they remained dismissive of the threat. “Here come those last 50 Spitfires,” sneered one pilot of a Dornier DO-17 bomber. But complacency soon turned to fear. Badly misled about the strength of Britain’s defences, the Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses at the hands of Fighter Command. That day marked a decisive defeat for Germany. Hopes of achieving air superiority were extinguished. On 17 September Hitler issued a formal directive postponing indefinitely his plan to mount an invasion of Britain.
The resonance of the Battle of Britain is all the more powerful today, given that this month marks the centenary of the RAF’s foundation. Created in April 1918 through a merger of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, the force came into being largely as a result of political pressure for an effective response to German bomber and Zeppelin attacks on southern England. More than two decades later, against a much deadlier aerial threat from Germany, the RAF had its “finest hour”, as Winston Churchill famously said. The name of Churchill will feature heavily in the RAF centenary.

But in contrast, that of his predecessor in No 10, Neville Chamberlain, is likely to be either ignored or disparaged. Where Churchill is seen as the architect of salvation, Chamberlain is considered to have brought Britain to the brink of disaster.

According to the conventional narrative, his cowardly policy of appeasement emboldened Hitler, while his mix of parochialism and thrift left the country ill-prepared for war. In the memorable insult of Lloyd George, he saw “every problem through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe”.

But this portrayal does Chamberlain a gross historical injustice. For all his undoubted flaws, including his vanity and self-delusion about Hitler, he deserves a large amount of credit for the RAF’s success in 1940. Far from leaving our defences ill-equipped, he was the leader responsible for ensuring that Britain had the planes ready for the titanic struggle against the Luftwaffe. For most of the 1930s, while he was prime minister and chancellor, his decisions provided the funds for the RAF’s expansion and ensured the money was focused on fighters.

As he wrote to his sister Ida in July 1940: “If I am personally responsible for deficiencies in tanks and guns, I must equally be responsible for the efficiency of the RAF.”

In the 1930s, Chamberlain had a crucial impact on air policy because he challenged the RAF orthodoxy, which held that its central purpose was to deter a continental enemy by the threat of devastation through strategic bombing. This theory of the so-called knockout blow was known as the “Trenchard doctrine” after the first head of the RAF, Hugh Trenchard, who put all his faith in bombers and believed that fighters were an irrelevance. “The aeroplane is no defence against the aeroplane,” he once said. Even after he departed in 1930, Trenchardism remained in the ascendant until Chamberlain broke its grip.

It must be admitted that he did so partly for fiscal reasons, since one bomber cost as much as four fighters. But he also saw that new technology, particularly the introduction of radar and fast, single-seater, forward-firing monoplanes like the Spitfire and the Hurricane from the mid-1930s, had the potential to transform aerial combat by making bombers far more vulnerable.

Contrary to his quasi-pacifist image, Chamberlain showed a keen interest in the technical details of the new fighters, telling the House of Commons in May 1938 about their record-breaking speeds and their advanced features, such as “engines of unprecedented efficiency” and “variable pitch airscrews”. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for the Spitfire and Hurricane, Chamberlain showed more insight than Churchill, who, as a Tory backbencher, felt that the RAF should be concentrating production on two-seater fighters with rearward-firing turrets. In 1938 Churchill explained: “The urgency for action arises from the fact that the Germans must know we have banked on the forward-shooting, plunging Spitfire, whose attack must most likely resolve itself into a pursuit which, if not instantly effective, exposes the pursuer to destruction.”

Exactly such a plane was being made, though not in the quantities that Churchill wanted. It was called the Boulton-Paul Defiant and proved a disaster in the war, offering little more than target practice for the Luftwaffe.

Fortunately for the RAF, Chamberlain prevailed. Under his leadership, the entire focus of the government’s rearmament programme was on fighter defence. “I have won all along the line,” he wrote triumphantly in 1934 when still chancellor, after he persuaded the RAF and cabinet colleagues to agree an increase in the number of home squadrons.


https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/04/did-neville-chamberlain-create-conditions-raf-win-battle-britain
 
Last edited:
"France & Germany still DO NOT PAY their NATO obligations - a middle finger to Ukraine"

The wondrous logic of a Rightwinger.
 
You're truly stupendously ignorant, I almost feel sorry for you. He had no choice but to go along with Hitler as he needed to buy time before the inevitability of war, smart people know this whilst fools like you just spout bullshit.

[FONT=&][FONT=&]

[/FONT]
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/04/did-neville-chamberlain-create-conditions-raf-win-battle-britain


It’s called appeasement. You can attempt to spin it any way you want but Chamberlain signed the accords and did not challenge Hitler. You have no idea how the war would have changed for the rest of Europe had Chamberlain not bent over and taken it. He resigned in shame, not for health reasons. But to be fair, Trump is worse. Nonetheless the comparison is entirely apt and you quoted but did not link to Quora. lol at you.
 
It’s called appeasement. You can attempt to spin it any way you want but Chamberlain signed the accords and did not challenge Hitler. You have no idea how the war would have changed for the rest of Europe had Chamberlain not bent over and taken it. He resigned in shame, not for health reasons. But to be fair, Trump is worse. Nonetheless the comparison is entirely apt and you quoted but did not link to Quora. lol at you.

Screw you retarded fuckwit. Without the huge amount of preparations Chamberlain set in place, there wouldn't have any credible force to challenge the Luftwaffe, it's clear that you've no idea what fuck you're talking about. If you had any sense you'd just shut the fuck now before you reveal to all and sundry just how little you really know, pathetic clown.
.
 
It’s called appeasement. You can attempt to spin it any way you want but Chamberlain signed the accords and did not challenge Hitler. You have no idea how the war would have changed for the rest of Europe had Chamberlain not bent over and taken it. He resigned in shame, not for health reasons. But to be fair, Trump is worse. Nonetheless the comparison is entirely apt and you quoted but did not link to Quora. lol at you.

Britain and France fucked up with their overzealous Treaty of Versailles and then failing to hold Germany to it. WWII was really WWI Part Deux.
 
Britain and France fucked up with their overzealous Treaty of Versailles and then failing to hold Germany to it. WWII was really WWI Part Deux.

Yep. Hitler was a product of exactly that. Fortunately, we learned our lesson. Well, at least some of us did.
 
Screw you retarded fuckwit. Without the huge amount of preparations Chamberlain set in place, there wouldn't have any credible force to challenge the Luftwaffe, it's clear that you've no idea what fuck you're talking about. If you had any sense you'd just shut the fuck now before you reveal to all and sundry just how little you really know, pathetic clown.
.

Gee did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I'm well aware of that spin on things. It doesn't change at all what I said. You can spin Trumps NATO stance too, but if taken to it's logical conclusion, Putin will take over Europe, or a good part of it, because of that stance. Get it yet? Chamberlain appeased the Nazis. Trump is appeasing Putin. Do you need a picture?
 
Gee did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. I'm well aware of that spin on things. It doesn't change at all what I said. You can spin Trumps NATO stance too, but if taken to it's logical conclusion, Putin will take over Europe, or a good part of it, because of that stance. Get it yet? Chamberlain appeased the Nazis. Trump is appeasing Putin. Do you need a picture?

It's nearly 10:25 here, , sadly are totally incapable of working out world times outside of Minnesota.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Hitler was a product of exactly that. Fortunately, we learned our lesson. Well, at least some of us did.

History seems to indicate that people who support autocratic authoritarian states are stupid, angry and fearful. That's defines MAGAts to a "T".

What's really fucked up is that the MAGAts label Nazis as Leftists yet it's the MAGAts who are pushing a Nazi-like government.

8gp1z9.jpg


A4sPiLy.jpg


iP71r2G.jpg
 
Back
Top