Tom Kirkman

EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I am not sure I understand where you are going?

Other NATO countries increasing spending only benefits US if US spends less. Unless US just want NATO countries to buy US weapon tech.

Yes Rasmus I am saying Germany need to pay their way towards NATO  and yes that benefits the US as they have to pay for what Germany and certain others should be paying

if it was the other way round I would be saying the US should pay their fair share ie 2% GDP

Marcin seems to think it’s fine certain members of NATO don’t contribute their fair share.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Trump is NOT the first president to demand higher spending. Far from it. 

 

Never said he was, he might just be the first one to do something about it though 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes Rasmus I am saying Germany need to pay their way towards NATO  and yes that benefits the US as they have to pay for what Germany and certain others should be paying

I agree that Germany (and any other NATO member for that matter, incl Denmark) should increase defense spending. But if US spending is not decreased correspondingly this doesn't benefit US (unless they sell weapon tech). It is generally recognized that the US never cashed in the peace dividend after the cold war.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I don't know te auto-market, so I will take your word for it. 

What I do know if the offshore market and there the US has a 100 % protected market with the Jones Act. And European markets are open to US companies. 

Now, you can make the case that in the longterm the Jones has been bad for the US, but currently it is giving Jones Act shipowners in the offshore space a massive advantage. 

Jones Act makes no sense in this context. It only applies for cargo going FROM a US  port TO a US port. That's it. Tell me how this makes any difference vis a vis EU competitiveness? 

Personally I'm dead set against the Jones Act. I only see where it hurts US consumers and helps (perhaps) some shady ship owners. In theory it was keeping our merchant marine afloat, but in reality it's a crutch for bad operators of shoddy and outdated equipment. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 7:56 AM, DayTrader said:

Why wait for Brexit?  :) 

English and proud! Why are we being lumped in with a whole continent anyway? Does no one have any pride in their country nowadays?

We are amazing. Get with the program people. That's why you're currently reading ENGLISH. Do the math. 

Idk about the rest of people, but I speak American. We don't put random 'u's in things, nor swap 'r' and 'e' randomly... and singular words are singular! (My team is winning.)

Crazy brit. 😜

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Huh? No, you took out the U in things, to keep it nice and simple I guess?

Surely colur makes more sense than color if you're gonna change it?

English - fence / defence  ... American - fence / defense

Simple rule - if it makes no sense, it's probably the American version.

It's our language, we can have letters wherever we want! American is not a language. Do the math.

Your language technically is ''butchered English''.

#aluminum (5 syllables too tough for you guys I guess).

F**king yanks

X

:) 

 

Edited by DayTrader
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Huh? No, you took out the U in things, to keep it nice and simple I guess?

Surely colur makes more sense that color if you're gonna change it?

English - fence / defence  ... American - fence / defense

Simple rule - if it makes no sense, it's probably the American version.

It's our language, we can have letters wherever we want! American is not a language. Do the math.

Your language technically is ''butchered English''.

#aluminum (5 syllables too tough for you guys I guess).

F**king yanks

X

:) 

 

"Two common peoples separated by language"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 ''Autumn''

2 ''Huh?''

1 ''Autumn''

2 ''What's that?''

1 ''It's a season''

2 ''Hey Bill, what's it doing outside?''

3 ''It's getting cold, leaves are falling''

2 ''Ok, we will call it 'Fall' ''

Brilliant. Surprised you guys don't call the seasons Fall, Nippy Time, Sunny Time and Flowering Time.

#butchered

 

Who said that anyway? Shaw?

 

Edited by DayTrader
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

1 ''Autumn''

2 ''Huh?''

1 ''Autumn''

2 ''What's that?''

1 ''It's a season''

2 ''Hey Bill, what's it doing outside?''

3 ''It's getting cold, leaves are falling''

2 ''Ok, we will call it 'Fall' ''

Brilliant. Surprised you guys don't call the seasons Fall, Nippy Time, Sunny Time and Flowering Time.

#butchered

 

Who said that anyway? Shaw?

 

So you're blaming the Brits or the French?

Could be Shaw, could be Wilde. I'm liking Wilde

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

LOL huh? Not 'blaming' anyone, we have words from French and German and all over the place. I think autumn is a great word personally.

Just find it amusing you chose to change 1 out of 4. The MN next to each other confused you guys? It's ok, I understand ...  ;) 

Fall better than Ortem I guess.

#nippytime

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine question.

We have the word autumnal. What do you guys say for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I am not sure I understand where you are going?

Other NATO countries increasing spending only benefits US if US spends less. Unless US just want NATO countries to buy US weapon tech.

NATO countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP as their contribution to the organization. Historically most of not done this.

This allows them to be secure at someone else's expense, allows them to spend these mis-used funds on their internal social programs, and does not allow them to perform their share of a NATO mission when called on to do so.

When Libya was imploding, the US was taking on most of the airborne responsibilities. At some point France and Italy (I believe, could have this wrong) agreed to take over one specific bombing campaign...they ran out of bombs within 2 weeks and the US was forced to resume the mission.

This is the direct result of not funding your own security!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Genuine question.

We have the word autumnal. What do you guys say for that?

Autumnal

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Autumnal

Actually that was our word....we just let you borrow it so that you could sound sophisticated around Halloween.😂

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wishing I hadn't stuck my head in here now lol

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

NATO countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP as their contribution to the organization. Historically most of not done this.

This allows them to be secure at someone else's expense, allows them to spend these mis-used funds on their internal social programs, and does not allow them to perform their share of a NATO mission when called on to do so.

When Libya was imploding, the US was taking on most of the airborne responsibilities. At some point France and Italy (I believe, could have this wrong) agreed to take over one specific bombing campaign...they ran out of bombs within 2 weeks and the US was forced to resume the mission.

This is the direct result of not funding your own security!

Doug, 

2 points:

1) Other countries spending more doesnt benefit US unless US spends less. This is not the same as saying that NATO countries should not spend more, but there is a US domestic policy at play here too. 

2) Libya is really a bad example because it really was not a defense mission. No NATO member was attacked. 

Let me be clear - I think the US should force Europes hand and just close all bases in Europe with immediate effect. Simple. the big question is then if your one true God Donald will decrease US military spending accordingly and spend that money social programs??? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Autumnal

Haha fair enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Doug, 

2 points:

1) Other countries spending more doesnt benefit US unless US spends less. This is not the same as saying that NATO countries should not spend more, but there is a US domestic policy at play here too. 

2) Libya is really a bad example because it really was not a defense mission. No NATO member was attacked. 

Let me be clear - I think the US should force Europes hand and just close all bases in Europe with immediate effect. Simple. the big question is then if your one true God Donald will decrease US military spending accordingly and spend that money social programs??? 

On point 1 I understand you feel there are other reasons as to why the US has been happy to overlook their "overspend" such as US influence in Europe, military stability in Europe etc etc and there is credence to this argument.

However as the US starts gearing up for an election it is logical that Trump looks for easy wins. An easy win is to say to the American people "hey look at these bas*ards in Europe they have been fleecing us for years to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and its you taxpayers who are funding this, I'm putting a stop to it and those $ will be heading back to the USA."

To your average US John Doe what have they got to lose? And Trump is viewed as righting a wrong.

Its all about re-election Rasmus plain and simple.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Jones Act makes no sense in this context. It only applies for cargo going FROM a US  port TO a US port. That's it. Tell me how this makes any difference vis a vis EU competitiveness? 

Personally I'm dead set against the Jones Act. I only see where it hurts US consumers and helps (perhaps) some shady ship owners. In theory it was keeping our merchant marine afloat, but in reality it's a crutch for bad operators of shoddy and outdated equipment. 

Overall I agree that the Jones has had a negative impact on the US economy.

However, the US GoM is currently the best market for OSVs in the world due the super protectionist Jones. Admittedly this is because the world market tanked. put a 40 % tariff on European OSVs and they would still be more cost effictive than US vessels. The GoM for OSVs is 100 % closed to non-American companies. We can't even compete by paying a tarif. But US companies can compete with US vessels here.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

However as the US starts gearing up for an election it is logical that Trump looks for easy wins. An easy win is to say to the American people "hey look at these bas*ards in Europe they have been fleecing us for years to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and its you taxpayers who are funding this, I'm putting a stop to it and those $ will be heading back to the USA."

To your average US John Doe what have they got to lose? And Trump is viewed as righting a wrong.

Its all about re-election Rasmus plain and simple.

I know. And this was the point I was subtly trying to make. This ain't black and white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I know. And this was the point I was subtly trying to make. This ain't black and white. 

No it isnt, agreed.

However I still stand by the fact that if you have signed up to pay 2% of your GDP (minimum) then you should be held accountable by the other members of NATO if you renege on your promise. Or have to pay the difference on the following years budget, regardless of any other political reasons you may have.

Do you not think this is correct?

However I do think NATO is past its sell by date and needs a massive overhaul.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Idk about the rest of people, but I speak American. We don't put random 'u's in things, nor swap 'r' and 'e' randomly... and singular words are singular! (My team is winning.)

Crazy brit. 😜

But it hurts when former colony takes over the world from you and in the end also the language.

The same thing bothers Portugese.

Edited by Marcin
typo
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

No, we gave it all back, it got boring taking over the world to be honest. Was a bit too easy.

Remind me of Poland's amazing territorial history by the way?  ;) 

20 minutes ago, Marcin said:

But it hurts when former colony takes over the world from you and at the end also the language.

The same think bothers Portugese.

* in the end

* thing

* Portuguese

;)  More butchering ...

If you're gonna have a pop mate atleast spell it right ...   :) 

England is amazing. Deal with it. Some massive countries are still happy to be owned by us.

* cough  <commonwealth>

Note - you are reading and typing ENGLISH. Just sayin'

#brexit #DT2020

Edited by DayTrader
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

No it isnt, agreed.

However I still stand by the fact that if you have signed up to pay 2% of your GDP (minimum) then you should be held accountable by the other members of NATO if you renege on your promise. Or have to pay the difference on the following years budget, regardless of any other political reasons you may have.

Do you not think this is correct?

In priciple yes. 

I am just trying to get across that security is many things. European countries generally spend a lot of money on "soft security" such as foreign. And less money on hard security (i.e. military). 

Historically, at least of the reason US has spent so much money on defense is because it was in US interest. A good example is KSA. US protects KSA and in return gets:

1) Petro-dollar system

2) Cheap oil

3) KSA buys a lot of US weaponry. 

This forum has a tendency to overlook the nuances and go for punch-lines... 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.