North Korea and US politics

[mack341]

you gotta love the way NK phrase their statements, trump's flattery of Kim and the north koreans is not going to achieve anything concrete this is why bolton was against the talks because he knew the US would be expected to put something real on the table. As you said Harry the koreans are the best 'worst' negotiators.

I

 

[mack341]

This pic says it all. Being the second day, you would think that if they are in serious negotiations then the table would have some materials on it, like maps, folders with records for the nuclear sites..... maybe not that detailed but something that shows that they actually interact. Especially, since Nauert said "resumes", hence they probably had a short break. You would expect something on the table but it is squeaky clean.

From my countless meetings in over 3 decades, something like that would signal me that my potential customer sitting against me is not interested at all and will be most happy to see the back of me. I used to call this kind of meetings: "face showing sit-downs with a stale tasting coffee".

View attachment 92718

Very acute observation, the koreans look very earnest and serious whereas the american side look as if they have just been asked what they propose to give the koreans/chinese in return.

I love your description of those meetings, I think you must have enough stories of your time in the east to write a memoir, I'd definitely want to read it, even the bits about robots and canning processes would be interesting, you could make it one of those anonymous style tales if need be.

 

[slotplayer]

Gordon Chang's on tele right now, says walk away.

 

[slotplayer]

Those documents on the table are just props, you would not publicly publish a photo of maps.

 

[mack341]

I think that gordon chang is a bit deluded, never heard of him before so looked him up and just seen an interview on fox news where he says president moon has surrounded himself with people that want see the north takeover the south. I think he must be one of these neo con pundits wheeled out by the media, rather than an independent analyst giving a considered view without an agenda.

Edit: just remembered FOX is Trumps favourite channel, interesting to see if he agrees with their advice on korea

 

[slotplayer]

I think that gordon chang is a bit deluded, never heard of him before so looked him up and just seen an interview on fox news where he says president moon has surrounded himself with people that want see the north takeover the south. I think he must be one of these neo con pundits wheeled out by the media, rather than an independent analyst giving a considered view without an agenda.

Edit: just remembered FOX is Trumps favourite channel, interesting to see if he agrees with their advice on korea

I've see him on a few stations, CNN, Newsmax. Supposed to be an expert on China or at least that is how the media portraits him.

But its not surprising Trump watches Fox, many do in the US.

 

[mack341]

I've see him on a few stations, CNN, Newsmax. Supposed to be an expert on China or at least that is how the media portraits him.

But its not surprising Trump watches Fox, many do in the US.

Yeah its not surprising but I think it goes a bit beyond just watching, I think fox try and groom trump so they can manipulate him on policy to take a neo con line, which is what murdoch is, a neo con. Having only seen a bit of fox like tucker carlson, who seems to be independent minded, and lou dobbs seems to be old school. I don't like that chris wallace bloke.

I'm no fan of the democrat stations either, there all big neo cons too, plus they encourage hysterical trump bashing rather than logical debate and ignore the bad things democrats do:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Imagine Trump or a member of his government said a similar thing.

 

[slotplayer]

Yeah its not surprising but I think it goes a bit beyond just watching, I think fox try and groom trump so they can manipulate him on policy to take a neo con line, which is what murdoch is, a neo con. Having only seen a bit of fox like tucker carlson, who seems to be independent minded, and lou dobbs seems to be old school. I don't like that chris wallace bloke.

I'm no fan of the democrat stations either, there all big neo cons too, plus they encourage hysterical trump bashing rather than logical debate and ignore the bad things democrats do:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Imagine Trump or a member of his government said a similar thing.

yes, I coined Trump the "sound byte president" but I'm sure he at least hears his admin people out, I hope he does.

tbh, I never liked Tucker when he was on Fox n Friends, especially when he wore a bow tie, (seems clownish) but I like him on his own show. Same for Chris Comos, didn't really like him on the CNN morning show but caught a couple segments now that he has his own CNN show and I liked he asked tough question, he seemed fairer to.

Lou Dobbs was on CNN for years and pushed a big anti-illegal immigration agenda. They ended up firing him and he landed at Fox Business.

I watch Chris Wallace sometimes but he's a not a favorite.

Charles Krauthammer was my favorite person in all of tv but passed away a couple weeks ago. Would of loved to hear his pov on NK, tarriffs, etc.

 

[mack341]

When I saw chris wallace compere the presidential debate, I thought he looks a bit nerdy and intellectual not the typical good looking presenter, but as the debates went on I thought he came across as sly and biased. I don't really know charles krauthammer, it certainly seems though you have a lot more political coverage and debate on US tv than we have over here.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Final proof that Mr. T does not read anything longer than a few sentences. He is adamant he signed a contract - he has not - and that it says "denuclearization of North Korea" - it does not. He thinks Kim will honor a handshake where he himself does not honor signed agreements.

This is the original text of what they signed:
"Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit"
"Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

Maybe somebody should tell him in easy-to-understand 6th-grader level words that he signed a JOINED STATEMENT to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, not just North Korea and most certainly no contract. I am slowly asking myself whether Mr. T, Pompano et al are playing stupid and naive or are indeed that stupid and naive?

And P. went within a few days from a quick 1-year plan a la Bolton to a "decades-long challenge". I thought that Mr. T and P. said it would be so quick and easy! Who knew it would be so difficult?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Results again - NOT - from the BEST deal maker ever. Question comes up whether he will ever sign a deal about anything?

Mr. T in May 2018 announced "voluntary, massive price cuts" for pharmaceuticals: “We’re also working very hard at getting the cost of medicine down, and I think people are going to start to see for the first time ever in this country a major drop in the cost of prescription drugs. We’ll have much lower prices at the pharmacy counter and it’ll start taking effect immediately.”

Mr. T on 10th July 2018, and of course there are others to blame

 

[Harry_BKK]

So now according to Mr. T "Germany is totally controlled by Russia". Says the one who is best buddies with Vlad and used his help to get elected. Question is who is actually controlled by Russia?

“Germany is totally controlled by Russia … They will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that is appropriate because I think its not."

“I think it is a very bad thing for NATO and I don’t think it should have happened and I think we have to talk to Germany about it. On top of that, Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent on defense … And I think that is inappropriate also."

The "worst dealmaker" ever looks so desperate to peddle his fracked LNG by trying to pressure Germany in public. And then trying to pivot imports from Russia as bad for NATO, an organization he called "obsolete"..... so why is he suddenly bothered? As if Angela is ever impressed by "little boys" tantrums.

He forgot also to check or inform himself that in the new "Coalition Contract" the current German government agreed to diversify energy imports to reduce reliance on Russia. Well, he would have to read for that, so hardly a chance for that to happen.

As for Germany's budget defense, it increased every year by a few billion because the amount is expressed as percentage of GDP which has been rising steadily. But then Mr. T never bothered about facts unless they were "alternative facts".

Great start to the NATO summit! It will be entertaining to watch Mr. T making a fool of himself again.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Just did a little research because "lying" Mr. T can't stop:

"It certainly doesn't seem to make sense that they paid billions of dollars to Russia and we have to defend them against Russia"

As usual, complete fantasies, here the numbers for 2016:

- US trade and services deficit with Russia: appr. $6.6 Billion
- Germany trade and services surplus with Russia: over EUR1.6 Billion or appr. $2 Billion

So who is paying Russia "billions of dollars"?

When will somebody shame Mr. T in public for his lies???? Because he just can't tell the truth, no matter about what topic.

 

[Harry_BKK]

The answer from Angela is how a smart lady is countering the nonsense from a lying bully who questioned her country's sovereignty.

“I have experienced myself how a part of Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union. I am very happy that today we are united in freedom, the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of that we can say that we can make our independent policies and make independent decisions. That is very good, especially for people in eastern Germany.”

"Germany does a lot for NATO. We are the second largest donor of troops, we put most of our military abilities into the service of NATO and we are strongly committed in Afghanistan, where we also defend the interests of the United States of America. Because the deployment in Afghanistan has to do with the only example of Article 5."

BTW, the only time Article 5 has been invoked and by who? Of course the US.

Question comes up why Mr. T is so paranoid about military expenditure. Pleasing his war-mongering buddies from the arms lobby? After all, nobody ever asked the USA to become the world police or ordered them to built up a huge army which spends as much per year as the next 10 countries altogether. It was their own government making those decisions.

Plus, the military expenditure from the US directly in Europe is only about $35 billion, Germany spends nearly the same amount towards the common defense of the EU. I am flabbergasted every time that a US president, who has all possible information at his fingertips, appears to be absolutely clueless and tries to spread lies at every occasion.

And after the meeting with Angela, probably after she gave him a good spanking, the hypocrite had the audacity to say stuff like: "We are having a great meeting." ... "We have a very, very good relationship."

Hours later he was back on Twitter blasting the same nonsense out again. Looks to me like a coward who can't get a word out when he sees eye to eye but then rants on Twitter hours later.

 

[slotplayer]

Sorry but days of short changing NATO to pay for your overly generous, but unsustainable social welfare programs may be ending.

 

[mack341]

According to the guardian, in 2016 Amazon [ biggest shareholder jeff bezos who also owns the washington post] paid just £15m in tax on European revenues of £19.5bn; there are probably many more firms pulling the same tricks, so there is plenty of potential tax revenue in Europe to cover increased nato spending without having to cut pensions and social welfare payments. However a serious political debate is required to decide if more spending is actually required, I suspect it isn't, the idea that russia plans to invade europe is a neocon wet dream.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Sorry but days of short changing NATO to pay for your overly generous, but unsustainable social welfare programs may be ending.

Hahaha, that is so Trumpian. Yet another ill informed post.

FYI, in Germany, all employed people are paying appr. 40% from their salary as contribution to the social welfare programs (pension - 20%, health care - 13%, unemployment - 6%), half of which comes from the employer. For easy calculation: for each $1000 in wages, $400 go to the programs. Hence, the yearly amount is immensely higher than what is spent on the military budget.

Second, there is no short changing NATO as it does not require countries to pay a yearly contribution. There is a small fund for NATO to cover the administrative costs and a few other things but that is negligible and to date no NATO member has any arrears to that. BTW, the contribution from the US to that fund stands at 22% while Germany is around 15%, however, overall we are talking my $3billion / year, so 22% or 15% is not a huge difference in money spent. BTW, the formula to calculate the contributions is derived from the GDP of each country.

Could list more, but your propaganda post in Mr. T's style just doesn't warrant more of my attention.

 

[Harry_BKK]

According to the guardian, in 2016 Amazon [ biggest shareholder jeff bezos who also owns the washington post] paid just £15m in tax on European revenues of £19.5bn; there are probably many more firms pulling the same tricks, so there is plenty of potential tax revenue in Europe to cover increased nato spending without having to cut pensions and social welfare payments. However a serious political debate is required to decide if more spending is actually required, I suspect it isn't, the idea that russia plans to invade europe is a neocon wet dream.

Exactly that is the crux. Europe has seen on its own soil two WWs in the past century and one of its central commitments after the last one was to avoid a third one at all cost. Hence, one of the reasons NATO was formed, which by the way was at the time to a major part a US plan for them to keep a military presence in Europe. You can read in the archives what the US government's thinking and policy was behind it.

After the end of the Cold War, every NATO member reduced their defense spending, except the US, who initially reduced it for a few years but ramped it up again after 2000, mainly because of their self-induced wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing to do with contributing to NATO or the like.

Fun fact, if the US would have kept the 2000 level of military spending they would be as well short of the pledged 2%, and by quite a margin. Hence, the additional spending is purely for their war adventures in the Middle East. 2000 - appr. $300 Billion, 2018 - appr. $700 Billion. Nobody can tell me or the entire world, that the increase is because of defending NATO countries.

So my question is, especially for "slotplayer", why should the other NATO members contribute to the useless and dangerous US wars and arms race?

 

[mack341]

Sorry but days of short changing NATO to pay for your overly generous, but unsustainable social welfare programs may be ending.

The thing is most people in europe don't really, deep down, feel threatened by russia, they did in the 80's when I was growing up. Spending on defence is going to come under scrutiny if there is no big threat, so certain parts of society [media being one] keep trying to ramp up the fear of russia and probably Iran too if europe walk away fully from the nuclear deal.

Increasing nato spending across the board is only going to lead to increased russian spending, and we are back to an expensive arms race, something that no sane person on this planet wants.

edit: I should have added 'at the moment' to the first sentence. An arms race will increase fear of russia, and the media scare tactics are working a bit but they require fresh 'events' to refuel the propaganda.

 

[slotplayer]

According to the guardian, in 2016 Amazon [ biggest shareholder jeff bezos who also owns the washington post] paid just £15m in tax on European revenues of £19.5bn; there are probably many more firms pulling the same tricks, so there is plenty of potential tax revenue in Europe to cover increased nato spending without having to cut pensions and social welfare payments. However a serious political debate is required to decide if more spending is actually required, I suspect it isn't, the idea that russia plans to invade europe is a neocon wet dream.

Then why not just put the 2% in?

The US puts in 3.5% of GDP I hear. That's a lot of dollars considering the size of US GDP.

Obama brought this issue up as well.

If I were Trump I'd just match the next highest amount contributed.

Wait till cars/buses/trucks are all electric and demand for OPEC fossil fuels plummet. Hopefully they're planning for it.

 

[Harry_BKK]

The 3.5% is for your entire defense spending with a majority eating up the cost for your military interventions in the Middle East. Nothing to do with NATO whatsoever.

Without the cost for those, you would spend less than 2%. Please keep it real.

Mr. T increased military funding in Europe by 40% in 2017. Nobody asked him to do that by such a large margin, nobody requested it. Question is why? For what reason? There is no imminent threat. IMO, it is purely to please the arms lobby.

Funny that Mr. T increased military spending in all areas but reduced funding for all humanitarian programs the US is contributing to. Again, why?

 

[slotplayer]

none of this is true?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Harry_BKK]

none of this is true?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

What isn't supposed to be true?

The countries are spending more in line with their 2014 pledge at the summit in Wales, hardly anything to do with Mr. T.

Yes, the US is using 3.5% of its GDP for military spending, but that is not all for NATO. Only a fraction, appr. $35B was spent last year in Europe that was connected to NATO. The big items in your military spending are the ongoing wars in the Middle East, nothing to do with NATO, but are purely self-induced interventions.

 

[mack341]

For the record I am not 100% anti trump more 50/50 but his speech today, where he went on and on about germany buying russian gas makes me wonder if he is losing his marbles or under so much pressure at home from the deep state [ muellers investigation, his solicitor arrested, russian collusion etc] that he has been forced to pressure germany on nord stream 2.

I thought he's been saying for ages he wanted the US and russian relationship to improve, strange way to go about it. He is a wily old dog though and probably is looking towards the next election period

 

[slotplayer]

none of this is true?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Doesn't say this, its my imagination.

The United States, which has the largest GDP of all member states, accounts for three-quarters of all NATO defense spending. The U.S. level was 3.61 percent of GDP, followed by Greece at 2.38 percent, Britain at 2.21 percent, Estonia at 2.16 percent and Poland at 2 percent in 2017

 

[Harry_BKK]

For the record I am not 100% anti trump more 50/50 but his speech today, where he went on and on about germany buying russian gas makes me wonder if he is losing his marbles or under so much pressure at home from the deep state [ muellers investigation, his solicitor arrested, russian collusion etc] that he has been forced to pressure germany on nord stream 2.

I thought he's been saying for ages he wanted the US and russian relationship to improve, strange way to go about it. He is a wily old dog though and probably is looking towards the next election period

The Russia gas thing is purely a desperate attempt to peddle the fracked gas from the US, which is more expensive than Russian gas by quite a margin.

Why do you think Mr. T's first proper stop ever in Europe last year was in Poland. Because they signed a deal with an US company to supply fracked LNG.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Doesn't say this, its my imagination.

The United States, which has the largest GDP of all member states, accounts for three-quarters of all NATO defense spending. The U.S. level was 3.61 percent of GDP, followed by Greece at 2.38 percent, Britain at 2.21 percent, Estonia at 2.16 percent and Poland at 2 percent in 2017

Yet again you are reading wrongly.

The entire defense spending of all NATO members amounts to nearly $1 Trillion. The US military budget is the largest part of that, but it does not mean the money is spent on NATO, it is spent for your military. The NATO chapter only asks members to keep their army "intervention ready", not how much should be spent on the military.

Again, your military budget in 2000 was around $300 billion and will rise in 2018 to appr. $700. That has nothing to do with "contributing to" or "funding" NATO. Your two wars in the Middle East are responsible for that extra spending.

Without the wars, the US would not meet the 2% of GDP level. If I take a gradual increase from the $300 billion in 2000 to lets say $350 billion in 2018 than you would be spending about 1.6% of your GDP on the military, substantially below the 2% target.

 

[mack341]

The Russia gas thing is purely a desperate attempt to peddle the fracked gas from the US, which is more expensive than Russian gas by quite a margin.

Why do you think Mr. T's first proper stop ever in Europe last year was in Poland. Because they signed a deal with an US company to supply fracked LNG.

how much fracked gas have the US got to flog? places like germany and even britain need a lot of gas during winter, surely the american reserves will run out and also the american's need it themselves to heat their homes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

how much fracked gas have the US got to flog? places like germany and even britain need a lot of gas during winter, surely the american reserves will run out and also the american's need it themselves to heat their homes.

Plenty, especially since Mr. T rolled back protective regulations that now allows the frackers to pollute and / or destroy some of the most beautiful parts of nature in the US.

 

[mack341]

Yet again you are reading wrongly.

The entire defense spending of all NATO members amounts to nearly $1 Trillion. The US military budget is the largest part of that, but it does not mean the money is spent on NATO, it is spent for your military. The NATO chapter only asks members to keep their army "intervention ready", not how much should be spent on the military.

Again, your military budget in 2000 was around $300 billion and will rise in 2018 to appr. $700. That has nothing to do with "contributing to" or "funding" NATO. Your two wars in the Middle East are responsible for that extra spending.

Without the wars, the US would not meet the 2% of GDP level. If I take a gradual increase from the $300 billion in 2000 to lets say $350 billion in 2018 than you would be spending about 1.6% of your GDP on the military, substantially below the 2% target.

Yes I think the money for nato activities and general defence spending should be seperate, then again I think the war in afghanistan became a nato operation from 2003 onwards.

edit: wikipedia states "One portion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan operated under NATO command; the rest remained under direct U.S. command."

 

[slotplayer]

Yet again you are reading wrongly.

The entire defense spending of all NATO members amounts to nearly $1 Trillion. The US military budget is the largest part of that, but it does not mean the money is spent on NATO, it is spent for your military. The NATO chapter only asks members to keep their army "intervention ready", not how much should be spent on the military.

Again, your military budget in 2000 was around $300 billion and will rise in 2018 to appr. $700. That has nothing to do with "contributing to" or "funding" NATO. Your two wars in the Middle East are responsible for that extra spending.

Without the wars, the US would not meet the 2% of GDP level. If I take a gradual increase from the $300 billion in 2000 to lets say $350 billion in 2018 than you would be spending about 1.6% of your GDP on the military, substantially below the 2% target.

Well the article lumped it in with NATO.

 

[mack341]

Maybe the pressure for all this increase in spending by nato countries is in preparation for a new conflict in the middle east? I hope not but I don't trust people like this stoltenberg or most of the UK parliament for that matter, I'm sure many mp's would jump at a chance for another war in the middle east.

 

[slotplayer]

The Russia gas thing is purely a desperate attempt to peddle the fracked gas from the US, which is more expensive than Russian gas by quite a margin.

Why do you think Mr. T's first proper stop ever in Europe last year was in Poland. Because they signed a deal with an US company to supply fracked LNG.

I'll agree with you there, T was trying to sell US gas, nothing wrong with it really, he's looking out for his country. Its just not logistically cost effective.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I'll agree with you there, T was trying to sell US gas, nothing wrong with it really, he's looking out for his country. Its just not logistically cost effective.

Of course nothing wrong to promote your own country's products. It is the way he does it.

Insulting Germany and questioning their sovereignty is not just the low road, but ultra-low road to take. However as I said, Angela is not a lady that is easily scared by "school boy" tantrums.

 

[slotplayer]

Maybe the pressure for all this increase in spending by nato countries is in preparation for a new conflict in the middle east? I hope not but I don't trust people like this stoltenberg or most of the UK parliament for that matter, I'm sure many mp's would jump at a chance for another war in the middle east.

maybe, the calm before the storm.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Well the article lumped it in with NATO.

It is how Mr. T has been peddling it to his base for years now. Trying to manipulate facts as usual.

Google "US military expenditure connected to NATO" to find out what the real numbers are.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Maybe the pressure for all this increase in spending by nato countries is in preparation for a new conflict in the middle east? I hope not but I don't trust people like this stoltenberg or most of the UK parliament for that matter, I'm sure many mp's would jump at a chance for another war in the middle east.

Well, the one-sided US support for Israel, the non-existent miracle peace plan from sunnyboy Jarred, the increasingly deeper ties between Israel, US and Saudi Arabia, the involvement in Syria, the stance against Iran - all is pointing to a new conflict brewing. And in the middle of that, you have a ever so present never-to-be-beaten Taliban and an ISIS currently in hiding.

It looks like another showdown between Shiites and Sunnites, which has been ongoing for centuries, if not millennia. The conflict in Yemen is a first sign of what could come in the next years. Only that now, half of the world is involved.

The arms lobby is indeed itching like rarely before to have another big war.

 

[slotplayer]

Of course nothing wrong to promote your own country's products. It is the way he does it.

Insulting Germany and questioning their sovereignty is not just the low road, but ultra-low road to take. However as I said, Angela is not a lady that is easily scared by "school boy" tantrums.

They showed it, it wasn't that bad. Don't you think them all snickering at T last year was low, or the baby Trump blimp, they're floating later on.

I admire T to some extent, he has 3/4 of the left wing media here pounding on him relentlessly every minute, all of hollywood, all the late night comedians, 66 million hillary/bernie protesting everything and most of Europe against him, but he does not rattle.

No offence, but May looked a little rattled over the Brexit fiasco, Angela over the immigration compromise.

 

[Harry_BKK]

They showed it, it wasn't that bad. Don't you think them all snickering at T last year was low, or the baby Trump blimp, they're floating later on.

I admire T to some extent, he has 3/4 of the left wing media here pounding on him relentlessly every minute, all of hollywood, all the late night comedians, 66 million hillary/bernie protesting everything and most of Europe against him, but he does not rattle.

No offence, but May looked a little rattled over the Brexit fiasco, Angela over the immigration compromise.

Please provide examples of the "snickering" coming from European heads of state.

The baby T blimp is from protesters, not from heads of state. Freedom of speech, isn't it?

Most of Europe is not against Mr. T, when will he and you understand that? They are just fed up with him trying to create a crisis for everything because he thinks that gives him extra leverage.

Angela mastered the immigration compromise according to her plan. So no, not rattled. In contrary, it was smart as with the "crisis" she got all countries to a table and on top got them to agree to a common plan. If anything, it showed her strength to master difficult situations without insulting or alienating anyone.

 

[slotplayer]

It is how Mr. T has been peddling it to his base for years now. Trying to manipulate facts as usual.

Google "US military expenditure connected to NATO" to find out what the real numbers are.

I will, I was looking for the numbers.

Much he exaggerates but a portion of it is his age/memory, he just remembers bits and pieces. I can see him when watching some of the rallys, now and then he hesitates and tries to make a statement more accurately. That tells me he's somewhat aware of it.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I will, I was looking for the numbers.

Much he exaggerates but a portion of it is his age/memory, he just remembers bits and pieces. I can see him when watching some of the rallys, now and then he hesitates and tries to a statement more accurately. That tells me he's somewhat aware of it.

Once you found them, google deeper with "US military expenditure in Europe connected to NATO". Plus, google as to how the cost of US military bases in European countries are born to a large part by the hosting countries. It's all not black and white as your Mr. T tries to put it.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between exaggerating a lot and reducing it a little.

 

[slotplayer]

Please provide examples of the "snickering" coming from European heads of state.

The baby T blimp is from protesters, not from heads of state. Freedom of speech, isn't it?

Most of Europe is not against Mr. T, when will he and you understand that?

Angela mastered the immigration compromise according to her plan. So no, not rattled. In contrary, it was smart as with the "crisis" she got all countries to a table and on top got them to agree to a common plan. If anything, it showed her strength to master difficult situations without insulting or alienating anyone.

Not the way the media spun it here, Angela sold out to save her political career.

I don't think we'd have a blimp here.

NATO snickering last year




Obama NATO

 

[slotplayer]

how much fracked gas have the US got to flog? places like germany and even britain need a lot of gas during winter, surely the american reserves will run out and also the american's need it themselves to heat their homes.

I forget how much it is but they've discovered a massive amount of gas. Something like 90 years worth.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Not the way the media spun it here, Angela sold out to save her political career.

I don't think we'd have a blimp here.

NATO snickering last year




Obama NATO

Angela got exactly to the point what was agreed in the coalition agreement after the election. Mr. Seehofer was just used as a conduit to get all countries to the table.

NATO snickering: Is the opinion of the Fox host, hilarious how he tries to insist it is "snickering". Most of the time throughout the video clip, none of those leaders are smiling or "snickering". Plus Fox, did not simultaneously show what Mr. T said in that moment when they were smiling. So much for transparent reporting.

Obama NATO: Of course, Obama brought it up too. Result was their 2% pledge in 2014 at the Wales summit and everyone is working towards it. Military spending of NATO countries increased every years since 2015.

Your Obama video in fact shows exactly how a decent president should do that. No insults, no questioning of sovereignty, no blasting, instead do the proper talks and negotiations out of the public eye. And he didn't travel to Finland after the summit to meet Vlad one-on-one.

As I said earlier, Mr. T tries to create a public crisis for everything because he thinks that gives him extra leverage. That might help when you are a real-estate bully in New York but certainly not on an international stage. In contrary, you are making a fool of yourself because at some point nobody will take you serious anymore.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I will, I was looking for the numbers.

Much he exaggerates but a portion of it is his age/memory, he just remembers bits and pieces. I can see him when watching some of the rallys, now and then he hesitates and tries to make a statement more accurately. That tells me he's somewhat aware of it.

It's not just exaggeration, it pure lying that is coming daily from a sitting US president. Just look at his tweet from today:

- billions of additional dollars are not spent at his request --> they are in line with the pledge from the 2014 summit in Wales
- it is enough spent considering that Europe is in peace time - the European NATO countries spent nearly $235 Billion in 2015 and will spend an estimated $285 Billion in 2018, that is an increase of roughly 20%. Higher increases would be only warranted if a war would be imminent.
- Europe's borders are not bad --> Mr. T trying to deflect from his own inhumane border chaos.
- The pipeline is a project of a private company - plus, as I mentioned earlier the US has a trade deficit with Russia, while Germany has a trade surplus. Do we question the US why they are sending billions of dollars to Russia?

What is the worst with this kind of misleading tweets is that millions of US citizens are reading them and actually believe what Mr. T is saying.

 

[mack341]

Not the way the media spun it here, Angela sold out to save her political career.

I don't think we'd have a blimp here.

NATO snickering last year




Obama NATO

This blimp is childish, I don't think it represents most british people, its rude and impolite. Parts of the uk establishment are not against trying to undermine Trump, regardless of free speech there's no way a blimp of Mohammad bin Salman, Bibi Netanyahu or Xi Jinping would have been allowed when they visited london. Donald almost gets as much bad press coverage here as putin. I think he needs to laugh off the blimp with a one liner though.

 

[mack341]

I forget how much it is but they've discovered a massive amount of gas. Something like 90 years worth.

If they were to take over from russia in supplying europe with gas, it might then be only 45 years worth. I think as america has suffered the environmental damage, the least that can happen is the gas be mainly for use by americans in their homes rather than shipped to Europe.

 

[Harry_BKK]

If they were to take over from russia in supplying europe with gas, it might then be only 45 years worth. I think as america has suffered the environmental damage, the least that can happen is the gas be mainly for use by americans in their homes rather than shipped to Europe.

Question is, will you or anyone in Europe accept higher prices by 20 - 25%? Mainly due to shipping cost. Transporting LNG across the Atlantic is no easy feat.

E.g. only found UK numbers from 2014 in a quick search but they give a good indication. Average gas bill for all UK households was GBP752 / year, that would rise instantly to GBP940 / year should the UK switch 100% to US gas. I bet not many would be happy about it.

Problem is, they are fracking more gas than the national need, hence, it has to go somewhere.

 

[mack341]

Question is, will you or anyone in Europe accept higher prices by 20 - 25%? Mainly due to shipping cost. Transporting LNG across the Atlantic is no easy feat.

E.g. only found UK numbers from 2014 in a quick search but they give a good indication. Average gas bill for all UK households was GBP752 / year, that would rise instantly to GBP940 / year should the UK switch 100% to US gas. I bet not many would be happy about it.

Problem is, they are fracking more gas than the national need, hence, it has to go somewhere.

Canada must need a fair bit with their temperatures and alaska too, it can also be stored until required.

I want to pay the lowest price possible for gas as my home is not very warm in winter as it is, but if the elite in this country can get away with it they will make us use expensive fracked gas rather than import cheaper russian gas, its probably the reason why we have also began fracking here.

It starts to make me wonder whether a few years ago the the neocons and their think tanks here and in the US came up with this fracking industry for only one real reason to try to damage the russian economy which relies on exporting energy.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Mr. T yet again lying. According to him:

"I told people that I'd be very unhappy if they didn't up their financial commitments substantially. Because The United States has been paying a tremendous amount —probably 90% of the cost of NATO." --> complete lie, nowhere near 90%.
"I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have now substantially upped their commitment." --> nobody signed any upped commitment
"Everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. They're going to up it at levels that they never thought of before." --> no, they only reaffirmed the 2% pledge

EDIT: Here's the answer from Macron exposing Mr. T's blatant lies:

"There was a communiqué released yesterday it was very detailed and I invite you to read it. It shows the measures approved by all the member states. This communiqué is clear, it reaffirms a commitment to 2% in 2024. That is all."

Again, when will someone call Mr. T out in public on his lies?

And regarding his insults against Germany and others:
"I think it's a very effective way to deal. It's a very effective way of negotiating." - so what exactly has he effectively gotten? Nothing, nada other than more from the other NATO members.

Below the excerpt concerning military spending from the official Brussels Summit Declaration. I just finished reading the entire 79 paragraphs of the declaration, and paragraph 3 is the only one mentioning military spending. Maybe somebody should read it to Mr. T as good night story, he might listen then.