Trump to Pull Thousands of U.S. Troops From Germany

Discussion in 'United States' started by Mandelus, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    78,297
    Likes Received:
    52,861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. Here is the source:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

    Germany $491.32 Bn = 1.36%
    Calculation:
    (491.32 * (2/1.36)) - 491.32 = $231Bn US
    Yeah, probably, and of course, you had nothing to do with that, I retract it.
    Well, I'm not sure about that.

    https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

    This lists you as 6th behind UK, India, Saudi Arabia, China and US.
    Yeah, you would probably get some of that kind of blow back, but, it's been nearly a century, and you are needed. Japan faces similar, so incremental with obvious shows of good faith, and you re-establish control over your own border. Getting cozy with Russia raises similar issues. Similarly, early in WWII, Germany was in a sinister alliance with Russia, and divided Poland like spoil.

    But, to your point, I think that all those US troops stationed in Germany do quiet the anxiety of your neighbors, but, we respect your peaceable nature, and we no longer think it is necessary.
    Ouch! You think your GDP will decline by that much? That would be something in the neighborhood of $2.5T rather than $3.4T or a 28% drop? I don't think it will be that much.

    [​IMG]
    I think last quarter was the worst, we'll see a nice pick up in 3rd and an even bigger one in 4th.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
  2. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Under Trump's leadership more and more US soliders go home in peace as he does not lead murderous hate campaigns, which kills US soldiers in the thousands and their victims in the millions like Hillary Clinton and to same lesser degress Barack Obama did. He left the IS allies of his criminal predecessors and some criminals within his own party alone, cut of their supply and let Putin and Assad deal with them. He did not escalate with Iran, in the inner-policy he dealt with the deep-state and its mass murderers. On the outside, he did not escalate in the outside, but keeps American interests with the Doctrine of the Mean. The IS disappeared due to the lack of support from the US they received under Hillary Clinton (with Barack Obama slowly realizing how evil his former foreign ministress was, changing her course).

    He reconciled Israel with the VAE right now and did not drive hate- and war-mongering campaigns against Putin. He even tries to comes to term with North-Corea. He is closer to Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi than to Hillary Clinton or George Bush.

    With him the world is a safer place and doesn't need to be armed to the teeth plus he was disaapointed that Germany did not contribute to the extend to NATO he wished to (an attitude he shared with his pre-decessors).


    Hopefully this peaceful and decent leader is re-elected, Joe Biden is the candidate for IS-terrorists, for Antifa-terrorists and for alle war-mongers in the world.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
    Tim15856 likes this.
  3. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Its strange, you accuse Trump of stupidity, but are unable to look though the even most primitive proganda of the media. In decades he is the first who established a culture of live and let live with Russia

    Irrefutable fact is that Trump cannot stand Merkel's government because from day one on they lessoned and bashed Teump's government in public in favour of left-wing media instead of the US government. And a diplomatic backlash is the logical follow-up. Trump never had a problem blowing up numbers and making up arguments, there is nothing new about that, but anyone not totally blinded by the left-wing media knows whats this backslap is for. And its a mild backslap, after all re-grouping of their troops was 90% strategy (Germany isnt the frontline anymore) and 10% dipoomatic payback.

    You are crying about Germany too devoted to the US, suggesting closer ties to Russia, but bash the first presidents since decades who wanna come to turns with Russia after all instead of dreaming to put Russia down. Try to figure out your own cognitive dissonance by crying with the wolfes of leftist media.

    This was the candidate, the German press wanted to enter White House at any cost:

     
    Tim15856 likes this.
  4. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um ... mathematically incorrect, sorry. You have to start from the GDP itself and then calculate 2% of it.
    The GDP of Germany in 2019 was 3.4 trillion EUR, which is around $ 4.1 trillion depending on the daily exchange rate.
    Of that $ 4.1 trillion then 2% makes $ 82 billion as military budget...

    It's not about you :)
    The point is that every time if the issue isGermany is declared an "opponent" and / or Germany does not submit to the will of others, the Nazi era is pulled out of its pocket with corresponding comparisons ... no matter what.
    As is well known, Germany was divided until 1991 and even West Germany did not have full sovereignty (East Germany certainly not at all, under Moscow's knudder).
    But that is over since the reunification and the regaining of full sovereignty and the world has to get used to it. Germany also has its own interests and the same rights as everyone else ... but with that, various people have a problem that Germany no longer subordinates its interests to those of the others and also that Germany no longer draws the checkbook for the account of others.

    Correct ... in parts. It is not $ 50 billion at us - it is $ 54 billion ... but what I mean is "if Germany now spends 2%, then we are number 3 in the world" ... and this is with then $ 82 billion given, being behind China and before Saudi Arabia ;-)

    But we have no desire to this "NAZI time BS" anymore...
    Anyway ... the point is that we have for sure no need for such a big budget! Look, we don't have any global interest on the other side of the planet. We have also no oversea territories somewhere anymore and the only missions outside NATO area were and are few:

    - Afghanistan from the beginning on and sometimes with second or third larrgest contingent behind US and sometimes UK.
    - Anti Terror mission in Mali / Africa together with France
    - Some UN missions like anti piracy in Indian Ocean.
    - Some NATO missions as in Kosovo or now in Jordan ... Before that in Turkey, but since Erdogan messed with the wrong person, we withdrew our troops from Turkey, ended our NATO duty and mission at them because Syria simply and stationed them in Jordan in the fight against IS.

    And you have to know one important issue too:
    On May 8, 1945, you allies drove us Germans out of all militarism more than thoroughly. We see the military as a necessary evil, which unfortunately a state must have ... but no more than necessary. For example, you will never see any public military parades at us like you do or in other countries.
    In short: Defense of Germany is OK ... Defense and missions within NATO territory are also OK. UN missions are OK too ... but everything else will be difficult.

    As I said ... the only question is, what do these troops use to ease the fear! Except for the 2nd ACR, almost all of them are not combat troops. All ground staff from Ramstein, the hospital in Landstuhl, logistics, military intelligence, signals and staff from various HQs. But no infantry, tanks, artillery and so on.

    It is also the case that not only you Americans work with Poles. A German Panzergrenadier Batalion (Armored Infantry) is subordinate to a Polish brigade ... a Polish tank battalion to a German brigade. And in the Baltic States, Germany provides the main part. The NATO Battlegroup Lithuania is under German command and does not consist of a single US soldier ... besides Germany there are units from Belgium, Germany, France, Croatia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway.

    I agree ... but look, with these digits, the duty of 82 billion USD = 2% of current GDP will be then reduced to 74 billion USD = being 2% of GDP. Or in other words ... the current spend of 54 to 55 billion USD will be more as the current 1.4 or 1.5% of GDP ... ;-)
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
    gabmux and Zorro like this.
  5. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You forgot Iran.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  6. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct and this is good that we are "cozy" with Russia and Iran as you name it.
    At Northstream we have a contract with Russia, concluded at a time when Russia was not made an "evil" in an idiotic way and unfounded ... and in contrast to the USA we keep contracts!
    Same with the Iran deal where criminal Trump behaves disgustingly!
     
  7. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History repeating itself.
     
  8. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    O ... someone who comes again with Nazi Time? Seriously? ROFL ...

    If you don't like the fact that Germany has been a sovereign state since 1991 and that West Germany no longer keeps its mouth shut and subordinates its interests to those of the USA and, if possible, also pays the US bill ... but insists on its interests and also no to them USA says ... then ... yes then we will open the drawer and come with the Nazi era out of it to blame Germans as being alsways evil still ... because these evil Germans as not further willing to play American Slave!

    Apart from the fact that this behavior is ridiculous and disgusting, just as the USA should first look in the mirror for their own crimes ... in terms of content, the Nazi era in the case of Northstream and the defense budget is still so wrong, more you can't go wrong anymore!
     
  9. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm just making observations that are completely factual.

    You're free to make whatever conclusions you'd like.

    I'd love to hear more about how you think of yourselves as slaves to America though. Talk about Victim Olympics.

    We pull some troops out and you lose your mind. I'm just wondering why.
     
  10. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I lose my mind? Where????

    Factual you say? Well ... facts:

    The contract for North Stream was done in 2011 and at this time was nothing evil on the table about Russia which speaks against. And as you Americans say by your own: Contract is Contract!

    We are free to make a contract with whomever we want as you are! We are not forced to ask you in Washington to be allowed to do ... isn't it?
    So why are you illegal interfering in our issues please?

    Yes, you pull out some troops out and I as majority of Germans would not care about at all ... if Trump does it not reason with proven lies!
    Are we forced to invest now in this moment 2% of GDP into defence as Trump demands? No ... we are from year 2024 on and for sure not now by NATO contract made in 2014!
    And does it cost the US taxpayer money that we don't invest right now these 2%? No ... not at all, everything a fat lie! Even f we invest, you would have the same costs for your troops then as now and that they are here for our defence is a next fat lie, because they are not but for pure American global interest which have nothing to do with our defence or NATO!
     
  11. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, based on your 200 page OP.

    What was the purpose of NATO.
     
  12. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, you forced my hand.

    I'll break down the nonsense.

    #1. Clearly the POTUS shorthanded this by including civilian personnel working in Germany as part of the "force". Which, coincidentally, equals 52,000 Americans in Germany as part of, or supporting, the military mission in support of NATO in Germany:

    https://www.dw.com/en/us-military-in-germany-what-you-need-to-know/a-49998340

    The president estimated around 52,000 military personnel are stationed in Germany, but that number may include Defense Department civilian employees.

    #2. Ridiculous assertion. The vast number of any military force is not front line fighters, but support personnel. Without support personnel, fighters can't fight. This is basic common sense.

    #3. Germany doesn't meet it's 2% obligation.

    [​IMG]

    #4 See # 3

    #5 Duh. Of course sending our military to foreign countries costs the taxpayer money.
     
  13. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Complete Thread has only 4 pages ... only btw ...

    NATO's purpose is to help and support each other, i.e. to defend.
    So ... what in Germany ... besides the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment ... of the US armed forces in Germany defending NATO or my country again? Um ... nothing and that's the truth and fact!
    What the US armed forces have in terms of combat units across Europe, you don't even scare your own Texas National Guard!
    Euro support points in Germany only serve as FOBs for your geostrategic and political interests that have nothing to do with NATO!

    So ... your own goal in terms of the hint with pupose of NATO! First of all, fulfill your own obligations!
     
  14. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The entire premise of your OP is ridiculous, as I pointed out.

    You failed to mention the actual meeting where Germany, and the rest of the NATO countries, was in 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014 to meet the goal by 2024 BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T DOING IT.

    Defending NATO is defending all members of NATO.

    Does Germany belong to NATO?

    What was the purpose of NATO?

    I mean you're asking some really obvious things that are quite ridiculous assertions.

    The purpose of having troops in Germany, as anyone who spent two mintues thinking about it would understand, is that the US troops there are to deter an attack: not stop it.

    Such an attack on Germany would also be an attack on US forces IN GERMANY.

    These arguments you are attempting are sophomoric.
     
  15. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113


    May include ... interesting! They are 35,000 and not more and civilan employees are ninteresting. Maybe you will count the relatives of the soldiers too, eh?

    Correct, without support personal you can't fight ... but having no real fighting forces and not even stored equipment of fightng forces where only personal has to be brought in by Air Lift for ... is then in the end what, eh?

    Germany has to meet from 2024 on by obligation due to NATO agreement signed at NATO conference in Wales 2014 ... do we have 2014 yet, eh?

    So why shall we spend now 2% when it is no duty? Because Trump wants it? ROFL ...

    Read the contract and after 01.01.2014 we can talk agan about these 2% but not now!

    Yes, but it wll cost the same amount if we invest right now 2% as Trump wants, eh?
    And above all ... there are still 35,000 US soldiers minus these 12,000 annonced to leave in Germany, because you want to have them here and not we Germans want to have them here ... and you need them here for maintaining your FOBs for your world wde interest, which have nothing to do with NATO!
    Where is any wounded US soldier in ME and Afghanistan flight to first? To Ramstrein and then brought to Landstuhl Hospital! Has this something to do with NATO and our defence? No!

    So stop telling that it costs the US taxpayer money because we don't yet invest these 2%, becase it is fat impiudent lie!
     
  16. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I really don't care if you think the civilian personnel, who are often former military there to train the military, is or is not part of the math.

    For you to claim it's a "lie" is just embarrassing. Civilian or military, there are there to contribute to the NATO mission. If the military draws down by a portion, the civilians there in support of the MILITARY MISSION will also be reduced.

    Our military isn't there to fight, as I explained. They're there to make Russia think twice before attacking US personnel by attacking Germany.

    This is basic concepts.

    No, Germany was supposed to meet their 2% obligation since 2006. They never have.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/02/16/military-spending-by-nato-members

    Oh no. If the US pulls out, you're going to be spending much more than 2%, and that is what you're really mad about.
     
  17. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong ... research better before writing nonsense!

    Before 2006 there was no duty for anyone in NATO to invest whatever percent ... and in 2006 it was done towards the new members in Eastern Europe that they modernize their forces up to meet NATO standards!
    And for reasons of solidarity, it was decided in 2014 that everyone must meet this 2% from 2024.

    Do we have 2024? No!

    And that is precisely why Germany is doing far more for NATO than the US is doing. Who is defending the Baltic States and has always sldiers stationed there, etc.? You Americans? No! Not a single GI is in the Baltic States, but a bunch of Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians and other Europeans!
    And are you the only ones who are in Poland to protect it from an alleged danger from Russia? No! German and Polish units are closely linked in the NATO command structure and organization of brigades etc. ... much closer than you!
    Why? Because you simply don't have any fighting troops in Europe for it!

    And as for deterrence ... that's the only argument that's right. But why deterrence and against whom and why?

    Sure ... Russia! But we have the fact that you declared the Cold War on Russia for no reason, not Russia on NATO! So a deterrent against an old new enemy, which one in the USA first created itself again!
     
  18. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bullcrap ... in 2006 it was as duty for the new Eastern European members only ... research betternext time!

    And about the rest for what the US troops are here, read my former answer to you!

    You created Russia to be the new old enemy and not reverse Russia started to be a any threat! So you messed it up, them solve it also!

    Edit:
    If the US pulls out, we will not spend a Cent more!
    You know that we don't care if you pull parts out, all out or pulling more? We shrug about it simply ... but we don't shrug about these impudent lies and this is the point!
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
  19. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean like these NATO documents from 2006? That kind of research?

    https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s061009a.htm

    On defence spending, I have a critical message. Only seven of the 26 NATO allies meet the benchmark of 2 per cent of the gross domestic product on defence spending. It's clear that we need to do better here. I know that not any nation can reach the target immediately, but I think we should at least have the ambition to reach the 2-per-cent benchmark of GDP spending at a certain stage.

    https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

    Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending
    .

    What's Germany going to do, wait until Dec 30, 2023 to finally increase their spending to 2%?

    What a joke.

    Germany knows they were expected to increase spending to 2% since 2006.

    Germany lied.
     
  20. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Man ... you are really stubborn and immune to facts to write such a bullcrap and lie again and again...

    In the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO member states were not obliged to spend a certain proportion of their GDP on defense. Such an agreement was first signed at the 2002 NATO summit in Prague. In addition to the decline in the defense budgets of the European allies, which the USA viewed with concern, the starting point was probably the Membership Action Plan (MAP) for the candidate countries. The reason for the decline was, by the way, in addition to the generally changed security situation after the end of the Cold War, that almost all NATO members abolished the Conscription and thus the troop strengths were significantly reduced = also the expenses for it. One requirement of this MAP was to invest “sufficient resources” in the defense sector.
    Defense expenditure of two percent of GDP at the time of accession was seen as fulfilling this criterion. In the run-up to the Prague summit on 21/22 November, the US administration in particular took this requirement for the candidate countries as an opportunity to ensure that this target also applies to the Member States, i.a. in order to appear credible to the candidate countries.
    However, the two percent benchmark agreed by the heads of state and government of NATO member states at the Prague summit did not imply any legal obligation.

    Read by your own:
    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19552.htm?

    This two percent target was first set down in a NATO document with the Ministerial Guidance of June 7, 2006. At the subsequent NATO summit in Riga on 28/29. November 2006 the heads of state and government, according to NATO on their homepage, confirmed this agreement of the defense ministers and also committed themselves to "commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defense." However, this target, which the then US ambassador Victoria Nuland had described as the “unofficial floor” a month before the summit, was not included in the final declaration of the heads of state and government.

    Conclusion: At the Riga summit in 2006 no obligation was created because if it is not in the final declaration signed by all the heads of states and governments, it is just blah blah blah!
    You don't like that, of course, but it doesn't matter if you like it or not ... Fact stay fact!

    The two percent target was first set in a summit declaration at the NATO Summit in Wales from September 4th to 5th, 2014. With the so-called “Defense Investment Pledge “(DIP) the NATO countries, which spend less than two percent of their GDP on defense, committed themselves to approximate the proportion of defense spending to two percent of gross domestic product within the next ten years ... so by 2024!

    Conclusion: an obligation is only given from 2024 on ... not now. And since Germany has demonstrably and by pure proof of digits increased its expenditures since then until now constantly, we have also kept up with the constant increase!
    Likewise, it is generally also legally the case that a follow-up agreement annuls the previous agreement ... so the agreements of Prague in 2002 and Riga in 2006 do with the signatures on the agreement of Wales in 2014 no longer count!

    FACTS ... only that count! Before 2024 no one has a duty to meet these 2%!!!


    Annotation:
    And whether the 2014 agreement is a legally binding obligation is controversial among constitutional lawyers ... I'm not just talking about such constitutional lawyers from Germany, but they come from all 30 member countries of NATO, including some from the USA!
    I just want to mention that and I'm not such a constitutional lawyer ... so I'll leave that uncommented whether it's an obligation or not.

    Personally, I see such an obligation of whatever percent of GDP as nonsense. It is important that every NATO member is obliged to have a correspondingly high minimum of armed forces operational (100% are an illusion, no one including the USA can do that!) And a minimum standard of equipment for modernity ... regardless of whether existing ones are modernized equipment or purchase of new equipment ... to meet.
    You can perhaps make a specification regarding equipment and assignment of binding tasks in order to fulfill these tasks ... but the troop strength - number of soldiers - itself cannot be included, since almost all of them no longer have a Conscription ... at most one appropriate Minimum number that can be negotiated.

    If someone does not fulfill these agreed obligations, then NATO can and should react accordingly!
    And exactly when that is the case ... then ... YES THEN ... you have hit the sore point in the case of Germany and what the current problems with operational readiness are, and here I agree with you and beat on my government about too.
    The current budget of around 54 billion US dollars would have to be increased somewhat, to around 60 billion.

    The problem, however, is not the money, but rather incredibly blatant mistakes, stupidity and incompetence in organizational matters (mostly done by civilans in defence ministry) in our armed forces, along with wasted taxpayers' money in the budget, for which I would like to send those responsible jerks to prison for a few years!

    We have e.g. 6 non-nuclear hunting submarines with fuel cell propulsion, which according to the US Navy are pretty much the best hunting submarines in the world and which are also used by other NATO members and even by Israel.
    It's great to have such submarines, but stupid when something breaks, which can always happen to anything. Why stupid Because spare parts stocks for these submarines? Doesn't exist, not even for normal wear parts! If something breaks, then 2 of the 6 submarines serve as a spare parts store = that's called cannibalism .. and the parts have to be manufactured first!
    Dumber than such handling is difficult to make, isn't it?

    And i can give you many of such examples of pure stupidity in organization and decisions ... ;-)
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
  21. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,537
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh I see.

    Germany agreed to a 2% spending increase in 2006, they just decided not to do it since there were no repercussions for not doing so.

    Then in 2014 they promised to do it by 2024, and have increased their spending by 0.2% since then.

    Doesn't sound to me like honoring a commitment.

    Does it sound like it to you?
     
  22. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All these arguments about if 2% are an obligation or not. Someone who states he favours friendship to Russia and then bashes the only president who denies the campaigns against Russia his predecessors led and tries to comes to turns with Russia is not to be taken seriously.

    [Mandelus]"I want better relationships with Russia so please replace the resonable man who estbalished good relationships with Putin by another war mongering lunatic who wanna lead at least cold if not hot war against Russia. As an excuse they dont allow sodomy parades in the streets of Moscow."[/Mandelus] Lol! Some kind of joke!
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
  23. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All logical...detailed...and expected.
    Thank you
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
    Mandelus likes this.
  24. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only the clubs, bars, disco joints, brothels might miss soldiers giving them money...
    but am sure they will manage. Germany takes good care of their citizens.
    Germans are in better physical condition then people here
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
  25. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is the most intelligent statement I've heard here in....12 years maybe longer
     
    Mandelus likes this.

Share This Page