Fake News Reporting Thread

[Kidlicious]

This is not "news" (though your claim that is is news is fake). Good luck trying to distinguish news from opinion. Your track record on that sucks.

This is fake news

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-in-brussels-the-germans-are-bad-very-bad-a-1149330.html

[Proteus_MST]

This is fake news

http://m.spiegel.de/international/wo...a-1149330.html

And where in this article do you read that the EU plans to isolate Trump?


Btw. as a sidenote:
Trump obviously also doesn't know where the "german cars" are produced.
Because else he would be aware of the fact, that the german cars, he and his posh friends re so fond of buying, are produced in the USA ... and that therefore it is thanks to BMW and VW, that hundreds of americanns have jobs (and that any import restrictions on germany (and the car parts that may be needed by those huge german car factories in the USA) may risk that BMW and VW will finally dedice to relocate their car factories somewhere else (for example Canada, Mexico or South America)

[kentonio]

So looking forward to the day when this administration crashes and burns and Kid is left insisting in this thread that its all a giant conspiracy theory.

[rah]

Trump may be a douche, but claiming that the US has gotten more out of the alliance and that Europe hasn't benefited is a bit of a stretch.
As the facts show, many members have been able to scrimp a bit on their defensive budgets and put that money into other things knowing that the US was backing them. To ignore the benefit of that is just being a tad blind.

[Proteus_MST]

Trump may be a douche, but claiming that the US has gotten more out of the alliance and that Europe hasn't benefited is a bit of a stretch.
As the facts show, many members have been able to scrimp a bit on their defensive budgets and put that money into other things knowing that the US was backing them. To ignore the benefit of that is just being a tad blind.

I have to admit that I exaggerated.

During the times of the cold war, of course, all NATO countries greatlly profited from being under the protective umbrella of the USA. Without the USA, europe (probably with the exception of the UK) very probably would be communist by now.
(This was btw. the time when the FRG still had over 2% GDP spending on military, as seen here ... afterwards however it fell, for once becuse of rapid german growth, for the other, because the loss of the "big enemy" USSR meant, that the government couldn't "sell" t the german population, that further increases in the defense budget still would make sense, especially as the german army was seen as a pure elf defense army ... contrast this with the USA, which, even after the disbanding of the USSR still had lots of operation on foreign soil ... and therefore the government surely hs less problems in selling increases in defense spendings to its population).

After the disbanding of the USSR, the NATO countries, however, saw diminishing returns wth regards to "being protected by the USA", as there was no powerful enemy anymore.
The NATO still did (and does) make sense in order to keep the peace among NATO countries and in order for common peacekeeping operations (like against the IS), but it isn't as if the NATO countries need to be protected by the USA against some enemy.

Aso, regarding the 2% GDP military spending nowadays:

Look at nowadays defense budgets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

If we compare the defense budgets, then even an attack by russia on the EU wouldn't be a big problem without the USA.
If we take the defense budgets of the 3 strongest EU countries together (France, UK, Germany) then our combined aobsolute defense budget is more than double that of the russians.
And this although from the EU countries only France exceeds the 2% GDP defense budget, whereas russia even spends 5.6 % of its GDP on its military.
Why?
Because our economies are so strong (especially compared to russia) that even if we spend a small percentage of our GDP on defense, that budget still exceeds that of weaker countries by far. (Look for example at poland ... they actually spend 2% of their GDP on the military ... in absolute numbers however, they spend less than 1/4 of the money that germany does)

[rah]

Yes, there is still something to be gained. And I'd have no problem with the US spending a bit less on Defense and spending it on her own people.

[BeBMan]

Look at nowadays defense budgets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

It doesn't say much. In pure numbers Europe spends quite a lot esp. when compared to Russia, but it does not spend smart. It often does not get enough 'bang for the buck', and that is a prob that's persisting for years. For example, it's absurd to have Germany, France, the UK, and Italy all making an own MBT. That costs a lot, but it does not translate into higher military capability automatically. Similar in other fields.

There are some notable examples of coop, but they are not the norm. And some of those are highly problematic (A400M for example).

As much as I think Trump is a joke leader he does have a point when saying that Europe should do more for its defense. I just think rather throwing more money around it should spend way smarter and more 'european' (so integrated as opposed to what we have now mostly - national armies doing their thing with national defense projects, but come together as NATO members).

[Proteus_MST]

I don't disagree.

The european NATO states (epecially germany) surely could use a little bit more spending (maybe germany then could ugrade their Leo 2 with Upgrade package 8 ... perhaps even with the 140 mm cannon with Autoloader). And AFAIK the NATO states already in 2015 made the plan that those states who are below 2 % will increase theri spending to 2% until 2025.

Reminding the NATO states that they should inrase their spending would be O.K. ... just no the way like Trump did ... i.e. by claiming that, with not spending 2%, the states incur any debt to the american people, or that the large military budget of the USA would in any way have something to do with the other NATO states "not spending enough" into their military.


Regarding a common european (or NATO) MBT:
It would definitely be more efficient, considering that then you wouldn't need different production chaisn for parts, spare parts and ammo.
But it is something that might woork or can fail. Remember the MBT-70 which ws suppoed to become the common german and american MBT.
It had massive problems from the beginning on, due to quarrels regarding high mobility (preferred by germany) and high armor protection (preferred by the USA), quarrels whether to use metric and imperial system, and which parts should be use (with both countrys, naturally, preferring systems built in their ofn countries) and finally failed due to exploding development costs (although it taught germans and americans a lot, for the development of their own MBTs, the Abrams and the Leopard 2)

But well, the Leopard 3 (currently in development) is actually a cooperation between france and germany ... but it isn't supposed to get out of development before 2030 (and, I guess, with exectable delays, we won't see them fielded by germany and france in meaningful numbers before 2035)

[Proteus_MST]

T-Shirts for our american friends?

http://www.headlineshirts.net/sorry-about-our-president-t-shirt.html#.WSnXAG6kLIV

[Bereta_Eder]

a common european army was first envisioned in 1956 (IIRC) within the framework of the then european comminity but was shot down in the french parliement. (france wanted to stay independent)
germany does produce the leopards (of which unfortunately and due to the unstable local environment we are probably the main buyers) but it still is "under occupation" from ww2.
that's why it can't have an offensive army or nuclear weapons.
I don't think anyone will trust germany to participate in the slightest in a common european army and if france makes the mistake to colerate to that, it will pay a heavy price. History has shown that it has consistently been smarter than that.

a common european army is a wet dream the way the EU is now. half the states (germany included) have excellent relations with russia for example. So even if a european army proceeds (impossible) it will not have the same raison d' etre as NATO.

fact is that nato (being a bastard and a half) has secured peace (in the sense that people aren't blowing eachother up with weapons) within its "borders". In this regard it remains advantegeous.

a common european army sounds way too imperialist and uncontrolable. ruled by a corrupted elite.

[Bereta_Eder]

Also I think the UK can in no realistic way be envisioned to participate in such a utopian endeavor. It will act like the cuba of the USSR (cuba=UK, USSR=US)

[Bereta_Eder]

If we go back to the roots of the european federalists the secondmost popular idea for the european contruction was that there were a bunch of medium states that were being squeezed between the US and the USSR. Integrating to the max was the way forward to a european emancipation.

Things have changed drastically since then. The EU is buzzing with conflicting and centrifuge interests, a noticeable distrust towards germany and NATO being seen (and actually being) the US presence in europe is no longer viewed as a negative thing.
In the south for economic/geopolitical reasons and in the baltics/poland because russia

[Uncle Sparky]

http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogt...te-supremacist
... and the Fake News doesn't tell the real story, again!
Liberals denied a patriot's right to free speech, shouting at 2 women who were guilty of being Muslim! Patriot, who was not allowed to speak on various campuses stabbed several liberals. Two died. And the patriot was arrested.
HE SHOULD BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS!!! He was a white Christian shouting down two Muslim women! Isn't this what makes Trump's America Great Again!

I bet Trump does not address this. I bet the (very) White House doesn't call this a hate crime, much less a terrorist act.

[Ben Kenobi]

looks like comments post ok here

[BeBMan]

I don't disagree.

The european NATO states (epecially germany) surely could use a little bit more spending (maybe germany then could ugrade their Leo 2 with Upgrade package 8 ... perhaps even with the 140 mm cannon with Autoloader). And AFAIK the NATO states already in 2015 made the plan that those states who are below 2 % will increase theri spending to 2% until 2025.

Sure, in the short term more spending is the right thing to do given the recent security environment IMO. In the long term I'd prefer more integration, 'better' spending, also more oversight on big defense projects, as they tend to take always longer, cost more than projected etc, etc. It might be unavoidable in case new requirements pop up during development, but overall this needs to improve.

[Kidlicious]

http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogt...te-supremacist
... and the Fake News doesn't tell the real story, again!
Liberals denied a patriot's right to free speech, shouting at 2 women who were guilty of being Muslim! Patriot, who was not allowed to speak on various campuses stabbed several liberals. Two died. And the patriot was arrested.
HE SHOULD BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS!!! He was a white Christian shouting down two Muslim women! Isn't this what makes Trump's America Great Again!

I bet Trump does not address this. I bet the (very) White House doesn't call this a hate crime, much less a terrorist act.

Well he was a Nazi, not a white Christian. Thanks for showing how anti-white, anti-Christian you are while you ***** about hate crime against people who believe in a prophet that murdered, enslaved people and raped little girls.