[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Merkel vs Trump: German leader warns that Europe can no longer rely on Donald's America and says its leaders must take 'destiny into our own hands' after stormy G7 Summit
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... no-longer-rely-Trump-s-US.html
Published: May 28, 2017
Author: Liam Quinn
Post Date: 2017-05-28 18:26:41 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 2393
Comments: 14

  • Merkel came to the realization after what she 'experienced in the past few days'
  • The German leader had spent time with Donald Trump during the G7 Summit
  • 'The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over,' she said
  • Merkel described her frustration with Trump's failure to agree to a deal that would see the US remain in the Paris climate accord as 'very unsatisfactory'

Angela Merkel has dramatically signaled a move away from Donald Trump - saying Europe can no longer rely on America.

It comes just one day after Trump left a stormy G7 Summit in Italy, in which he frustrated Merkel and the other leaders in attendance with his stance towards security, climate change and tax.

The German Chancellor urged the European Union to stick together in the face of new uncertainty stemming from the US and other challenges.

Merkel said Sunday at a campaign event in Bavaria: 'The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.'

The roots of the current relationship between America and Europe go back to world war two and the cold war - when NATO was formed to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion.

Since the end of World War II, Europe has increasingly relied on America's military might for its defense. Close cooperation through NATO fostered a strong economic and social bond between the member nations.

However, Trump has loudly complained about European nations not paying their fair share of the cost of their defense.

Now that Merkel has signaled she is moving away from Trump, it could mean a shift in the wider world order. America and Western Europeans countries have traditionally driven the world's agenda - now this could change as Trump and Merkel move further apart.

The comments came after the G7 countries were unable to agree to a deal that would see the 2015 Paris climate accords upheld.

Merkel on Saturday labelled the result of the 'six against one' discussion 'very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory'.

Trump, who routinely promised during his campaign to abandon the plan, said he needed more time to decide on a path forward. However, he has reportedly told multiple people in private he will withdraw the US from the agreement, according to Axios.

Trump tweeted Saturday morning to say he would announce his 'final decision' on the accord this week.

He also reportedly described German trade practices as 'bad, very bad,' in Brussels talks last week, complaining that Europe's largest economy sells too many cars to the US.

Merkel's speech on Sunday seemed to reflect her changed opinion towards the US under Trump.

Trump repeatedly bashed NATO during his campaign and since he took office, accuses countries of 'not paying their share' and bashing the group as 'obsolete'.

He made the 'obsolete' comment in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack in 2016. In an interview this April, Trump claimed he called the organization that because it did not 'focus on terrorism'.

However, NATO issued its first formal declaration on counter-terrorism in 1980, and it reviewed the 'terror blueprint' in 2012.

It stated at the time: 'The Alliance strives at all times to remain aware of the evolving threat from terrorism; to ensure it has adequate capabilities to prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorist threats.'

But despite that incorrect statement, Trump still lectured the other leaders in person on Thursday, declaring: 'Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years.'

But most notably in his speech, he also did not offer an explicit public endorsement of NATO’s Article 5, 'all for one, one for all' collective defense principle - which means an attack against one country in the group is seen as an attack on all.

During his time as a candidate, Trump had suggested the US might only come to the defense that meet the alliance’s spending guidelines - for committing two per cent of their gross domestic product to military spending.

Last year, only five of the 28 countries met the goal: the US, Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland.

Fellow NATO leaders occasionally exchanged awkward looks with each other during the president’s lecture on Thursday, which occurred at an event commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

NATO officials had expected Trump to raise the payments issue during Thursday’s meeting, even preparing Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg for the prospect that the president could try to pull off a stunt like handing out invoices.

Trump repeatedly bashed NATO during his campaign and since he took office, accuses countries of 'not paying their share' and bashing the group as 'obsolete'. He is pictured on April 12 at the White House

But one European official said NATO members were still taken aback by the aggressive tone of his speech.

Since his international tour has wrapped up, the Associated Press explained how many of Trump's claims about the defense organization are untrue.

His comment about countries 'owning' money was the first to be found wanting by a fact-check.

Members of the alliance are not in arrears in their military spending, nor are they in debt to the US, or failing to meet a current standard, and Washington is not trying to collect anything, despite the president’s contention.

In a similar fashion, Trump tweeted this week 'pour in' for NATO since he took office.

He picked up on that thread on Saturday, telling soldier at a US base in Italy: 'I will tell you, a big difference over the last year, money is actually starting to pour into NATO from countries that would not have been doing what they’re doing now had I not been elected, I can tell you that. Money is starting to pour in.'

But again, that is not true, according to the Associated Press.

No money is pouring into the organization and countries do not pay the US, nor do they pay NATO directly, apart from administrative expenses, which are not the issue.

The issue is how much each NATO member country spends on its own defense.

Although the president is right that many NATO countries have agreed to spend more on their military budgets, that is not a result of the NATO summit this past week at which Trump pressed them to do so.

The two per cent goal was committed to in 2014, during the Obama administration.

During her remarks, the German leader emphasized the need for friendly relations with the US, Britain and Russia, but added: 'We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.'

Merkel and Trump have had a frosty relationship, with the Celebrity Apprentice executive producer having called the German leader a 'disaster'.

'What's happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was like this great leader. What she's done in Germany is insane. It is insane,' he said in 2015.

The comment directly contradicted what he said just two months earlier, when he described Merkel as: 'fantastic... highly respected'.

Trump also refused to shake Merkel's hand during an awkward photo opportunity at the White House this year.

As the two were sat in front of a pack of photographers, Merkel could be heard saying to Trump: 'Do you want to have a handshake?'

There was no response from the president, who instead looked ahead with his hands clasped.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: cranky (#0)

The two per cent goal was committed to in 2014, during the Obama administration.

"The alliance had established the 2 percent guideline at its Riga summit in 2006, yet did not include the goal in the official summit declaration endorsed by all member states. Before the Riga summit a NATO spokesman even explained, “Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that [member states] will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it.”

Which they promptly did not.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-05-28   18:59:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: cranky (#0)

"The issue is how much each NATO member country spends on its own defense."

Also, Trump asked them how they could afford a new $1.23 billion headquarters, but not kick in a lousy 2% for defense.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-05-28   19:13:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: cranky (#0)

Trump's right. NATO is a huge expense, and it's obsolete.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-05-28   19:44:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#1)

Which they promptly did not.

How rude of you to point that out.

cranky  posted on  2017-05-28   19:47:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

NATO is a huge expense, and it's obsolete.

But it's what stands between us and the russian bear.

Well, that and a few trident II d5s.

cranky  posted on  2017-05-28   19:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Trump's right. NATO is a huge expense, and it's obsolete.

If the US leaves NATO then it looses its ability to directly confront Russia in eastern Europe

paraclete  posted on  2017-05-28   19:59:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Trump's right.

Maybe, at that particular moment in time.

But trump walked back that 'nato is obsolete' rhetoric ("Trump didn’t know ‘much’ about NATO when he called it ‘obsolete’: report) back in april.

cranky  posted on  2017-05-28   20:18:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Trump's right. NATO is a huge expense, and it's obsolete.

NATO asks billions of dollars for defense while welcoming Islamic invaders.

rlk  posted on  2017-05-29   0:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: cranky (#4)

Which they promptly did not. How rude of you to point that out.

These self-important assholes sit around -- on our dime -- forming committees, passing resolutions, and signing agreements ... with no intention of ever honoring them.

Then they conclude their summit congratulating themselves on all they accomplished.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-05-29   11:43:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: cranky (#7)

"But trump walked back that 'nato is obsolete' rhetoric"

He believed that NATO, as an organization, wasn't addressing the terror threat and was, therefore, obsolete. Changes were then made at NATO.

Because of that, Trump's attitude on NATO has changed. I wouldn't call that "walking back".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-05-29   11:53:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#10)

He believed that NATO, as an organization, wasn't addressing the terror threat and was, therefore, obsolete. Changes were then made at NATO.

The way I heard it was somebody pointed him to the the 2002 partnership pction plan against terrorism that was since superseded by the policy guidelines on counter-terrorism.

So trump changed his tune.

cranky  posted on  2017-05-29   19:50:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: cranky (#5)

Nuclear weapons keep the peace.

But the truth is, the Russian Bear is not strong enough or numerous enough to invade and conquer Western Europe conventionally. The Warsaw Pact might have been able to, but Western Europe, alone, outnumbers the Russians 3:1, and has an economy four times the size of Russians.

In a pure conventional war between Europe, alone, and Russia, alone, the Europeans would conquer Russia.

Russia needs nuclear weapons for its own security against the Chinese, but also against the West.

How ridiculous is the thought that the Western Europeans would invade Russia? Well, the Western Europeans have DONE IT four times in history.

How ridiculous is the thought that the Russians would invade Western Europe? They've never done it before. They have beaten back invaders.

Conventionally, Russia is far too weak and too small to have a hope in hell of conquering Europe. It is only nuclear weapons that make the thought of a Russian conquest of Europe even imaginable. The Number Three nuclear power in the world is France, and Number Four is the UK. They do not have the nuclear power of Russia, but they have more than enough to wipe out Russia as a force.

Western Europe can defend itself. The Soviet Union is gone. NATO is not standing between us and the Russian Bear. The Russian Bear has no designs on the USA. We OUTNUMBER THE RUSSIANS nearly 2:1. The Europeans outnumber the Russians 3:1. Together, we overpower the Russian economy 9:1.

That Russia represents a "threat" to Europe nor America is ABSURD. The Russians present no real threat whatsoever. The Ukraine isn't Europe. It's Russia. It's outside any rational sphere of American or European interest, and has been since the dawn of time.

What IS in our interest is to not go bankrupt, to run a surplus, pay down our debt get our house in order. Obviously for us to do that would not at all be good for our stockjobbing defense contractors and their investors, and equally obvious those stockjobbers have greater political access and influence than people like me.

So we continue to roll along with the Cold War, which is useless and bankrupting us, and we probably will continue to do so. I oppose it. I recognize that peace with Russia is vital for the economic future of my nation and my people, and I say so. And I know that I will be overruled by intelligent and manipulative defense industry stockjobbers, and the uninformed and irrational public they have bamboozled and stampeded.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-05-29   20:11:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: cranky (#7)

NATO IS obsolete. It's expensive, and it's not guarding against anything but a dagger of the mind.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-05-29   20:12:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: cranky (#11)

"The way I heard it was somebody pointed him to the the 2002 partnership pction plan"

Ohhhhh. They had a plan. Well, that changes everything. I didn't realize they had a plan.

This is, I believe, the same group that had a plan in 2006 to contribute 2% of GDP to defense?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-05-30   10:18:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com