Germany Thread: KEIN FASCHISMUS LEUDE BIDDE

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Germany Thread: KEIN FASCHISMUS LEUDE BIDDE

«‹›2043 »

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Randler posted:

Military spending doesn't make for good headlines so most people probably assume we barely spend anything on our military and do not produce any weapons at all expect that one-time we tried exporting Leopard IIs.

And they would be right, considering military spending in Germany works like building bridges by routing cement into a river with huge, expensive pipes: Theoretically, it's possible to get a bridge that way. Especially if you waste enough time and effort. My point being, it's not really "military" spending if you just throw money into the trash like this.

What private companies do in their spare time (exporting weapons) is another story, of course.

# ? May 7, 2018 18:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 22:13

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

cebrail posted:

I find it honestly interesting that the German public, even though there's a relatively wide-spread anti-militarism and anti-military sentiment (compared to other Western countries), never seems to take offence at military spending. The Elbphilharmonie cost 900 million and people were raging for years. That's like 4 Eurofighters in Bundeswehr money.

Randler posted:

Military spending doesn't make for good headlines so most people probably assume we barely spend anything on our military and do not produce any weapons at all expect that one-time we tried exporting Leopard IIs.

I think as a share of GDP, Germany's military expenditures are very low.

# ? May 7, 2018 18:45

Drone: Aug 22, 2003; Incredible machine

Cingulate posted:

I think as a share of GDP, Germany's military expenditures are very low.

As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%.

# ? May 7, 2018 19:19

Schurik: Sep 13, 2008

Duzzy Funlop posted:

Holy poo poo, thread title

Seconded. As great as the current one is, this is perfection.

# ? May 7, 2018 19:26

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

Drone posted:

As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%.

Citation needed.

And your president doesn't count.

# ? May 7, 2018 19:28

Healbot: Jul 7, 2006; very very very fucjable
very vywr very

There is no requirement lmao. You're either in it because the US wills it due to geopolitical relevance or not.

Healbot fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 7, 2018

# ? May 7, 2018 19:39

Peggotty: May 9, 2014

Cingulate posted:

I think as a share of GDP, Germany's military expenditures are very low.

That's true. But as a share of GDP, Germany doesn't spend that much on concert halls, train stations or airports either.

# ? May 7, 2018 19:41

Drone: Aug 22, 2003; Incredible machine

Randler posted:

Citation needed.

And your president doesn't count.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf

Page 3.

# ? May 7, 2018 19:51

Drone: Aug 22, 2003; Incredible machine

Drone posted:

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf

Page 3.

Also from NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

NATO posted:

In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally served as an indicator of a country�s political will to contribute to the Alliance�s common defence efforts. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance�s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU.

Drone fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 7, 2018

# ? May 7, 2018 19:52

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

Drone posted:

As of the last report I can find (source: NATO), the Federal Republic of Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defense. The well-known NATO requirement is 2%.

Drone posted:

You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU.

Ah yes, the "I lied but isn't the really important thing..." deflect, also known as the Sarazzin Salute.

Randler fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 7, 2018

# ? May 7, 2018 20:19

Drone: Aug 22, 2003; Incredible machine

Verily my point is laid low, as I dared confuse a requirement for an agreement. :negative:

# ? May 7, 2018 20:37

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Drone posted:

Also from NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU.

That's stretching the definition of "technically". If the guy who owns 3 quarters of the tree house says I need to bring it, that counts as a requirement to me. The definition of "technically" is not, after all, "ratified treaty says so", but something like "a request with some force behind it".

# ? May 7, 2018 20:46

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

2% sounds more like the SPD target vong nexte Bundestagswahl her

# ? May 7, 2018 20:54

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

Drone posted:

Verily my point is laid low, as I dared confuse a requirement for an agreement.

Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. :911:

(Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.)

Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.

# ? May 7, 2018 21:00

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Drone posted:

Also from NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

You are technically correct in that it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement (insofar as any international agreement outside of ratified treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on). Nor is it a flawless barometer for a member states' military affairs or its commitment to the alliance. But it is an agreed-upon target established by the treaty organization more than a decade ago, and it doesn't change the fact that the state of the Bundeswehr is, and has been for some time, a joke for a country with as much responsibility as Germany has given its importance within NATO and (more importantly) the EU.

Randler posted:

Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. (Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.)

Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.

I think we can all agree that "gently caress Trump" every time he whines about low military spending in Germany and other NATO countries.

That said, the commitment to reach 2% military spending is not unreasonable, and it's just not acceptable that the Bundeswehr is in such a terrible shape. Spending more money on the military so that we don't embarrass ourselves every singe time when there are Truppen�bungen is just common sense. As someone living in Germany, why should Drone not point this out? It has nothing to do with Trumphawks or MAGA chuds.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-luftwaffe-hat-nur-vier-kampfbereite-eurofighter-a-1205641.html

quote:

Die Besucher der Internationalen Luftfahrtausstellung ILA s�dlich von Berlin konnten dieser Tage den "Eurofighter" als Meisterwerk der Technik bewundern. Gleich mehrmals donnerten die Kampfjets der Bundeswehr vergangene Woche �ber das Ausstellungsgel�nde am Flughafen Sch�nefeld. Die Piloten zeigten waghalsige Man�ver, vor allem die Loopings waren spektakul�r.

Die Einsatzrealit�t sieht trister aus. Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen k�mpft die Luftwaffe mit einem massiven Problem am "Eurofighter". Der Gro�teil der 128 Maschinen starken Flotte ist f�r Eins�tze gesperrt. Den Technikern macht das Selbstschutzsystem Sorgen, da an einem Beh�lter f�r Sensoren, im Fachjargon Wing Pod genannt, K�hlfl�ssigkeit austritt.

Ohne das System "Dass" aber ist der Jet f�r echte Missionen nicht einsatzbereit. Laut Insidern d�rften derzeit nur rund zehn "Eurofighter" zu echten Eins�tzen starten. Gemeint sind damit Anforderungen der Nato oder eben ein Notfall �ber Deutschland, zum Beispiel das Eindringen von feindlichen Flugzeugen in den Luftraum. Mit der kleinen Zahl sind die deutschen Zusagen an die Nato kaum zu erf�llen, bei der Allianz hat man 82 "Eurofighter" f�r Krisenf�lle angemeldet.

This poo poo is simply not acceptable. It's in our national interest to be at least somewhat able to defend ourselves or our alliance partners. What is von der Leyen even doing?

# ? May 7, 2018 21:33

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Torrannor posted:

I think we can all agree that "gently caress Trump" every time he whines about low military spending in Germany and other NATO countries.

That said, the commitment to reach 2% military spending is not unreasonable, and it's just not acceptable that the Bundeswehr is in such a terrible shape. Spending more money on the military so that we don't embarrass ourselves every singe time when there are Truppenübungen is just common sense. As someone living in Germany, why should Drone not point this out? It has nothing to do with Trumphawks or MAGA chuds.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-luftwaffe-hat-nur-vier-kampfbereite-eurofighter-a-1205641.html

This poo poo is simply not acceptable. It's in our national interest to be at least somewhat able to defend ourselves or our alliance partners. What is von der Leyen even doing?

Cut all that poo poo and start building up a EU defensive military. We don't need 2% to defend our ourselves from the Russe once we stop dicking around with separate militaries.

Instead, use the money to finally build some goddamn Wohnungen and renovate some schools. This is the poo poo that actually matters, not bombing Afghans.

# ? May 7, 2018 21:44

wayfinder: Jul 7, 2003

https://twitter.com/Schlumpfkanone/status/993201324035641344

# ? May 7, 2018 21:49

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

Incidentally here's an article about the extreme pollen weather, it's apparently really a special thing this year.

It's not stopping either, I floated to work today on a cloud of tree sperm, my bicycle is yellow when it used to be red, I think something is growing on my tomato plants, this is some Nausicaa scenario here.

Thursday should be rainy though

# ? May 7, 2018 21:56

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Torrannor posted:

This poo poo is simply not acceptable. It's in our national interest to be at least somewhat able to defend ourselves or our alliance partners. What is von der Leyen even doing?

This is not von der Leyen's fault, the entire structure of procurement is rotten to the core. We could pump ten times as much money into procuring poo poo and would only see marginal improvements, if we're lucky. We'd need to completely axe the entire system, send everybody working there to enjoy some well-deserved Hartz IV and build it up from the ground up with new people.

Of course, every defense minister even thinking of trying this better be sure to be pure like winter snow, or a sudden, totally unexpected scandal will be unearthed, ending their tenure. Peter Struck did nothing to rock the boat, the other "von" got dumpstered after he got uppity and von der Leyen is ineffectual. After seeing multiple duds in a row like this, I'm slowly getting convinced the defense ministry is cursed.

Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:

Cut all that poo poo and start building up a EU defensive military. We don't need 2% to defend our ourselves from the Russe once we stop dicking around with separate militaries.

Instead, use the money to finally build some goddamn Wohnungen and renovate some schools. This is the poo poo that actually matters, not bombing Afghans.

The EU army can't come fast enough, hopefully in the process we can dismantle our own national procurement system. We could get those bureaucrats some work with our enemies, to make sure their militaries get hosed up, too!

# ? May 7, 2018 22:08

Torrannor: Apr 27, 2013; ---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Libluini posted:

The EU army can't come fast enough, hopefully in the process we can dismantle our own national procurement system. We could get those bureaucrats some work with our enemies, to make sure their militaries get hosed up, too!

EU wide procurement will likely be even more corrupt than the current system

# ? May 7, 2018 22:15

bronin: Oct 15, 2009; use it or throw it away

Schwerter zu Pflugscharen ihr ekelhaften Militaristen.

# ? May 7, 2018 22:23

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Torrannor posted:

EU wide procurement will likely be even more corrupt than the current system

I can live with corruption. What I object to is the current German system of blending corruption and Kafkaesque stupidity into clownery of truly farcical proportions. Even the Italian Mafia wouldn't be so bad at this than we are. :argh:

# ? May 7, 2018 22:31

Babies Getting Rabies: Apr 21, 2007; Sugartime Jones

"The technical name is actually Leopard 2% because of NATO" I slur completely high on glue fumes as I knock over the paint for my Revell kit

# ? May 7, 2018 22:36

frankenfreak: Feb 16, 2007; I SCORED 85% ON A QUIZ ABOUT MONDAY NIGHT RAW AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY TEXT

#bastionboogerbrigade

wayfinder posted:

https://twitter.com/Schlumpfkanone/status/993201324035641344

I think I could understand if it was Thursday already...

# ? May 7, 2018 22:54

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

Randler posted:

Sure. You were just "confused" about the easily googleable facts. And that "confusion" just coincidentally resulted in you posting one of the most-repeated, most-debunked lies your various presidents like to scream into the ether to show how tough they are on the degenerate Eurotrash. (Also to make your misguided military adventures cheaper, so the electorate can get that third SUV.)

Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.

if we agreed to it then we are required to follow through, drone is not a liar

# ? May 8, 2018 06:37

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

Goa Tse-tung posted:

if we agreed to it then we are required to follow through, drone is not a liar

Even if that extensive understanding of what constitutes a requirement was correct, the non-binding committments of NATO's 2014 summit would at most require attempting to hit the 2% percent spending target in 2024 ([url=https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm]see item no. 14). The 2014 summit results also supersede the previous timetable from 2006 for 2016 spending goals, so drone also failed to even use the correct date when repeating his bullshit Trump talking point. Ultimately, Germany still isn't spending below any NATO requirements.

Randler fucked around with this message at 06:55 on May 8, 2018

# ? May 8, 2018 06:51

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Randlr posted:

Even if that extensive understanding of what constitutes a requirement was correct, the non-binding committments of NATO's 2014 summit would at most require attempting to hit the 2% percent spending target in 2024, superseding the previous 2016 timetable ([url=https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm]see item no. 14). So Germany still isn't spending below any NATO requirements.

This is not how language works. Maybe that�s how it works in a particular sphere of people, ie procurists and other beep boop robodrones, but amongst everyone else, �we agreed to paying that much, by some time�, and then not paying that much, at some other, previous time, can be perfectly described as �not fulfilling the requirement�

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 08:35 on May 8, 2018

# ? May 8, 2018 06:59

bronin: Oct 15, 2009; use it or throw it away

Deutschland raus aus der NATO und das Problem ist gegessen imo.

# ? May 8, 2018 08:28

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Babies Getting Rabies posted:

"The technical name is actually Leopard 2% because of NATO" I slur completely high on glue fumes as I knock over the paint for my Revell kit

lol

# ? May 8, 2018 08:28

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

I obviously couldn't not do this ...

Bottom is log scale.

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:21 on May 8, 2018

# ? May 8, 2018 08:50

Drone: Aug 22, 2003; Incredible machine

I've been accused of many things but being a Trumphawk has never before been one of them. :stare:

Defense spending targets of NATO member states have been a topic of transatlantic policy for far longer than Trump has been president, and to pretend that this is only an issue because Trump makes it one of his preferred talking points (in the way a gangster extorts for protection money) is highly disingenuous of the actual topic at hand.

I don't know why I expected more rational discussion of this from Randler, but to hear him resort to this is oddly disappointing given how generally (and often frustratingly) vern�nftig he usually is:

Randler posted:

Kindly go gently caress yourself and whatever fellow Trumphawks are in your immediate vicinity.

# ? May 8, 2018 09:11

Simply Simon: Nov 6, 2010; 📡scanning🛰️ for good game 🎮design🦔🦔🦔

Randler is the kind of guy who doesn't understand the "gets off on a technicality" joke because he lives it

# ? May 8, 2018 09:15

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Drone posted:

I've been accused of many things but being a Trumphawk has never before been one of them. Defense spending targets of NATO member states have been a topic of transatlantic policy for far longer than Trump has been president, and to pretend that this is only an issue because Trump makes it one of his preferred talking points (in the way a gangster extorts for protection money) is highly disingenuous of the actual topic at hand.

I don't know why I expected more rational discussion of this from Randler, but to hear him resort to this is oddly disappointing given how generally (and often frustratingly) vern�nftig he usually is:

Randlr has to characterize others as extremist to ensure he doesn't have detestable opinions. This is why botany somehow is a tankie; if "everywhere from me points towards extremism", I'm obviously the reasonable center.

Simply Simon posted:

Randler is the kind of guy who doesn't understand the "gets off on a technicality" joke because he lives it

Welcome to the German Thread about Germans :v:

# ? May 8, 2018 10:02

sheep-dodger: Feb 21, 2013

Cingulate posted:

I obviously couldn't not do this ...

Bottom is log scale.

that image gave me a brain tumor.
Also: label your goddamn axes people!
:argh:

# ? May 8, 2018 10:41

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

sheep-dodger posted:

that image gave me a brain tumor.
Also: label your goddamn axes people!

The y axis is labeled and the x axis I have total faith you will be able to figure out for yourself within a much shorter time span than it took you to write this post.

# ? May 8, 2018 11:03