4 ms·

Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? >That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpaye

Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? >That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpayer money into defense contractor's and politician's pockets. Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. >We should reduce our presence in Germany speaking of Ramstein, Merkel didn't like that idea though when President Trump pitched it. How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? You're the one arguing that the base should be removed. Further, President Trump pitched ~10000 ideas a day, from drinking bleach against COVID to raking forests, to having to flush toilets 10s of times, to applauding Frederick Douglass for becoming more successful, I don't blame any sane person not keeping up with that crap. >Nowadays it'd be more useful to have them in Poland. Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all?

hunterb123 5y ago
> Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. > Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. > How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. > Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all? I'm saying if we do have to have strategic bases in Europe, it would make more sense to have them in Poland to defend against the most likely adversaries, Russia and China.
- nautilius 5y ago
  > Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. Fair enough, I apologize. >These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. Yes, but we're discussing what the US is gaining from the European NATO partners, and not what your personal opinion on wars in the Middle East is. >It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Uh. Ok. Sure. Don't forget the 1000 servings of Spatzle for Afghanistan refugees. That's another fact unrelated to the discussion. >Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. Check your facts, I saw the clips, that's exactly what he said. [0] But sure, I'll refer to him as "twice-impeached serial sexual predator, adulterer, who would like to date his own daughter and who can reliably recognize the picture elephant on a test" instead. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/make-america-rake-again-finland-trump-forest-fire https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/make-america...
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    > Yes, but we're discussing what the US is gaining from the European NATO partners, and not what your personal opinion on wars in the Middle East is. When we agreed to it maybe that plus the agreed upon GDP 2%? percentage payment was the motivating factor. The point is those countries aren't paying the agreed upon amount. Maybe it's still worth it for that simple fact alone and that's why every politician other than Trump was okay with the status quo, because they support the endless wars. > Check your facts, I saw the clips, that's exactly what he said. [0] "Raking of forests" is a real practice and in general he was talking about clearing brush to prevent fires. This is what the machines that "rake" forests look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EZeAiy3ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EZeAiy3ew > But sure, I'll refer to him as "twice-impeached serial sexual predator, adulterer, who would like to date his own daughter and who can reliably recognize the picture elephant on a test" instead. Acquitted both times because the impeachments were ridiculous. The other stuff you listed is ridiculous as well.

hunterb123 5y ago

> Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. > Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. > How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. > Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all? I'm saying if we do have to have strategic bases in Europe, it would make more sense to have them in Poland to defend against the most likely adversaries, Russia and China.

nautilius 5y ago
> Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. Fair enough, I apologize. >These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. Yes, but we're discussing what the US is gaining from the European NATO partners, and not what your personal opinion on wars in the Middle East is. >It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Uh. Ok. Sure. Don't forget the 1000 servings of Spatzle for Afghanistan refugees. That's another fact unrelated to the discussion. >Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. Check your facts, I saw the clips, that's exactly what he said. [0] But sure, I'll refer to him as "twice-impeached serial sexual predator, adulterer, who would like to date his own daughter and who can reliably recognize the picture elephant on a test" instead. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/make-america-rake-again-finland-trump-forest-fire https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/make-america...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > Yes, but we're discussing what the US is gaining from the European NATO partners, and not what your personal opinion on wars in the Middle East is. When we agreed to it maybe that plus the agreed upon GDP 2%? percentage payment was the motivating factor. The point is those countries aren't paying the agreed upon amount. Maybe it's still worth it for that simple fact alone and that's why every politician other than Trump was okay with the status quo, because they support the endless wars. > Check your facts, I saw the clips, that's exactly what he said. [0] "Raking of forests" is a real practice and in general he was talking about clearing brush to prevent fires. This is what the machines that "rake" forests look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EZeAiy3ew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EZeAiy3ew > But sure, I'll refer to him as "twice-impeached serial sexual predator, adulterer, who would like to date his own daughter and who can reliably recognize the picture elephant on a test" instead. Acquitted both times because the impeachments were ridiculous. The other stuff you listed is ridiculous as well.