Trump: "We're gonna have to send more weapons (to Ukraine)"

9zpx8k.jpg
 
It looks like Trump made a deal with NATO to sell NATO weapons so Europe pays for it.

Trump has been demanding this for a decade and said that the USA shouldn't pay for Europe's defense when he first got elected.

He went to NATO and said why are we paying to defend you from Russia while you buy Russian gas.

A short while after Trump got elected the European countries got together and said the Americans arent going to pay to defend us so we are going to screw America over in all of our trade deals.

So Trump pulled back air defense missles to Ukraine and paused shipments going to Ukraine.

Then Russia bombed the shit out of Ukraine in the last few weeks over 700 drones and dozens of missles in one night now Europe wants to pay.

This would have never happened under the last president. Under the last president America always had to pay.
 
Blackrock's employee Merz was installed as Chancellor of Germany, a position that the U.S. dictates orders to, per the Chancellor Act. (an identified but secret document). Blackrock and its tentacle corporations own Ukraine, after Zelensky stole the country and transferred ownerships from the people to Blackrock.

Trump knows Germany is already sending "triples of hundreds" of missiles including Taurus for offensive use against interior Russia starting as soon as later this month. Trump allowed this to happen, because he is fully invested in the Blackrock project.

 
Trump is selling them the weapons under the new deal so Europe will be sending the USA money. The USA has a lot of debt we cant afford not to sell weapons.
How did the USA get these weapons in the first place that they supposedly have to sell for financial reasons?

Did they buy them?

If so, the real financial beneficiaries of this arrangement are not the deeply in debt regime in DC, but the manufacturers of the weapons that are being bought by that regime and then resold.
 
How did the USA get these weapons in the first place that they supposedly have to sell for financial reasons?

Did they buy them?

If so, the real financial beneficiaries of this arrangement are not the deeply in debt regime in DC, but the manufacturers of the weapons that are being bought by that regime and then resold.

How does the USA get weapons?

They manufacture them. Its one of the things we still make in our country.

We have deindustrialized and outsourced almost everything else to other countries.

Over 40 states benefit directly and the other 10 indirectly. Plus the government gets some tax revenue and funds the government and some of that pays for the debt its our biggest government expenditure.

If the government sells something we happen to have a stockpile of and then orders a new one that doesnt just balance out we profit from it and the government makes revenue from taxation.

Its the one thing we can build better than any other country in the world at scales that other countries cant.
 
The federal government manufactures its own weapons?

And for free?!
Freedom isn't free.

The government bids these out to private industry and its an essential industry that provides the security for our country and protects our nations future.

When we are able to sell arms to other countries it lowers the cost of freedom and it helps pay off our debt.

Our ability to produce the best arms in the world is the envy of every other country in the world and every person that understands the cost of not being able to defend your nation and losing a war.

National security is the one industry that enables us to be able to do anything else.
 
It's not selling when you give them the money to buy.

It is selling they buy and the cost to produce is not the price we sell it for.

They also advertise it for us when they dominate their adversaries with them.

In the end its like they work for us which means its a mutually beneficial relationship.

Employees benefit employers in a consentual business arrangement and its a business arrangement where the employer benefits more than the employee.

Not only do they protect us from the Muslims but they are the best marketing for our products money can buy.
 
Freedom isn't free.

The government bids these out to private industry and its an essential industry that provides the security for our country and protects our nations future.

When we are able to sell arms to other countries it lowers the cost of freedom and it helps pay off our debt.

Our ability to produce the best arms in the world is the envy of every other country in the world and every person that understands the cost of not being able to defend your nation and losing a war.

National security is the one industry that enables us to be able to do anything else.
OK, but earlier you were making it sound like the government was making money off this.

I don't share your belief that foreign intervention makes us more free. And I'm not going to waste time debating that point.
 
"Freedom isn't free."

OK, but earlier you were making it sound like the government was making money off this.

We do make money. Our country does and our country pays for our government and our government sells freedom and our country makes the freedom.

We didnt create the concept that freedom has a cost. Freedom has always had a cost for 100,000 years.

We just marketed freedom and sold it and sell it at such a profit that it pays for our freedom and even invests in the freedom of the future of our country.
 
Back
Top