Originally Posted by Pete F.
Floridaman is surprised when, after three years of insulting our allies, they do not put up with his baloney.
Doubt if he is surprised. But, of course, you always know what REALLY is in his mind. Anyway, Trump has put up with insults from them and us for years. He has proffered some reasonable "baloney" such as paying the agreed upon share of NATO expenses. Some seem insulted by such a notion.
Start with the recent reduction in our NATO expenditure.
Don't know much about that, but if the expenditure was too high, especially in comparison with others who didn't live up to agreements, sounds like good idea.
Before that, he announced new tariffs on Argentine and Brazilian imports, along with a renewed threat of tariffs against French imports. On top of tariffs on Canadian, Mexican, and European imports.
The tariffs are not willy-nilly just for spite. They are efforts to achieve an economic quid pro quo. Plus the new trade agreements Trump made with Canada and Mexico that supposedly make things more fair for all are being held up from being ratified by the Democrats.
On top of demanding that South Korea to pay more for America’s military presence on the peninsula.
SK owes its existence and prosperity and security to the U.S. It has become an economic powerhouse and should be able to share in the costs of continuing its status and freedom. And it understands that. And it understands that the less it depends on the U.S., the more independent and freer it can be.
On top of calling our southern neighbors rapists and murderers.
When you resort to this false talking point, you lose what little credibility you may have had to this point of your post. He correctly referred to some who came from their countries. And you know that.
On top of picking fights with the leaders of friendly nations, such as Germany, France, and Canada.
Your credibility slides further away. Slanting verbiage from disagreements to "fights" is unnecessary negative drama.
On top of saying that he is “in love” with enemies, such as Kim Jong-Un.
Yeah, real "love" like trying to make Kim give up his nukes. Hey, we should love our enemies. Using "hate" language against them would be against our new values.
Those of us who understand Trump and Trump speak, don't take everything he says literally. You others insist on doing so when it can be twisted into orange man bad.
On top of insulting friends, as he did when he cancelled a state visit to Denmark because the country would not entertain the idea of selling Greenland to him. On top of pulling out of everything but porn stars.
Actually, the U.S. (Truman floated the idea of buying Greenland) isn't the only country interested in at least a piece of Greenland. Russia, China, and Canada would like to have some of it. Doubt if he canceled the meeting because of that. He did reschedule it, didn't he? And the pulling out of everything (Trumpian exaggeration on your part?) except porn stars is an uncalled for and exaggerated comment. But fits your hate.
That is where American foreign policy is at.
That's not even close to where American foreign policy is. And you know that. Or maybe you're stupid.
When we were THE SUPERPOWER we were the judge, the jury and the executioner. Pretty hard to beat that.
Wow, and even the "executioner"? Sounds ominous and dictatorial. Sounds like something Trump would jokingly say. Are you serious? And we still are THE SUPERPOWER. Trump hasn't changed that.
Have we not had the biggest and best economy in the world, do you have any clue why?
We still do and more so under Trump policies.
We have no angry neighbors, think about the rest of the world. With the exception of Australia and the Americas there are active conflicts everywheres.
Ugh . . . yeah, we have angry neighbors. Especially south of the border, and there are a lot of active conflicts there. Supposedly that's the reason for so many illegal aliens.
We don't worry about an armed invasion at our borders, instead we have to fear poor people coming here for opportunity.
yeah we do have to worry about that invasion which is an economic, political, social, and divisive burden we bear, especially born by the lowest spectrum of our society.
This is because we have worked towards this for generations and won, time after time, not by being an overt bully but by being a friend, ally and if needed speaking softly while holding a big stick.
Yeah we were often a bully (that's one of the reasons for the big stick). We've certainly been called a bully. Sometimes we need to be. And we did lose sometimes.
China has been begging the Argentines, Brazilians, and other states in our hemisphere to let them to invest in their countries.
Yeah, that's been their plan, before Trump. If the Brazilians go full socialism that might happen. There may be enough smart folks in control of those countries that know such a thing would make them a subsidiary in debt to China.
South Korea just signed a security agreement with China.
Understandable. They know they need security from the big monster next to them which wants to control or annex all the Asian, as well as other if possible, Pacific Rim countries. Hopefully, SK knows that China does not honor agreements or treaties unless they are forced to by a bigger power.
Russia recently hosted many African nations, has forces involved in conflicts there and forgave their debt, do you think they did that just to be nice?
Nope. Like with China.
France is saying perhaps they should along with the rest of Europe, just militarize and go it alone.
So are you afraid of Europe?
Until 70+ years ago there was war after war in Europe, is it to our advantage to let them militarize again?
You're implying here that the old divisions and hates are still latent in Europe and that if the countries were fully armed all the old European wars would resume--and these are the geniuses that mock Trump and whom we must admire when they do?
Some fools think that would be to our advantage, history does not.
Do you think that the last world war would not result, we would just sit back and watch, then deal with the victor?
Well, if they were foolish enough to do that, we could wait it out and save a lot of American blood and treasure. Russia and China could step in and eat up the spoils. Imagine all the different East and West European nationalities being under the control of Russia and China (Russia and China might well have their own territorial and economic differences). It would be an unwieldly mess, and an economic burden beyond the ability of Russia and China to bear.
The U.S. might well be the stabilizing influence in this world of animosities and conflicting political ideologies. But it won't be so if we become another centralized state like them, with the same politically authoritarian tendencies. And the only way, which we now know of, to keep us from becoming that is to adhere to constitutional principles rather than transforming into a Progressive centralized state like most of Europe, Russia, and China.
What we do to secure the world is far cheaper than war and less than having every country maintaining an army while we have to maintain one that can defend us from any combination thereof.
Sounds like you mean "control" rather than "secure." But "secure" does sound nicer and more friendly. It seems to me that you're usually into nice sounding things over harsh substance. But your post here seems to be recognizing a harsher reality that needs adherence over nice, friendly, fakery in the form of tact or diplomacy which doesn't hurt feelings and doesn't seem insulting. Except, of course, when Trump uses the feelings, tact, diplomacy, ploys in negotiating with adversaries he is, for you, being a traitor.
If you think the cost of what we do is a lot, what is the cost of war or maintaining that any eventuality army?
We cannot "secure" a world that has different foundational principles and goals than we do. Either they become like us, or we like them. Then security is more compatible and more feasible. If, at our costs (material as well as those beyond money that make up what we are in spirit), we secure those who value us mostly because of security and economic advantage, we spend our treasure on those who may turn on us at whim or pretense of being insulted. True family members, who may quarrel in high voices, will defend each other no matter the insults or hurt feelings they cast at each other so long as they value the family.
We can only secure ourselves and those who are with us come hell or high water. If Europeans are lost to us as allies because of some things Trump says or some minor economic squabbles, then they are not truly our allies.
I suspect that Europe will abandon us only when its values run deeply counter to ours. Which may not be far from the case now.
If we alienate our allies and then remove our forward bases, we do not have the transportation to react to problems worldwide and will be far weaker.
If we are not allowed forward bases, it is because allowing them to us it will be of no value or of negative value to those who own them. Or, perhaps, because they are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Again, alienating a true ally takes more than Trump type "insults." And if they are true allies in spirit as well as matter, than we should be able to trust them to be fully armed and willing to do some, or all, of that which we would do from those bases.
The weak lose, every time, sooner or later.
Among other things, weakness comes from lack of solidarity. Tsung Tzu taught how a smaller force could overcome a larger one simply by sticking together in all out combat against those who are about to destroy you, but have not the same ferocious need to fight to the death to survive.
When we become the big force, the big brother, who protects the smaller guy, the smaller remains weak and the bigger is weakened by lack of solidarity and the overall desire to fight.
We are not strengthened by alliances with weak dependents. But if we are to protect them, then they must at least be dependable, not some frightened twits who turn on you at the slightest presumed insult.
If you don't think so look at the British Empire, it once controlled the world. Now it is trying to not be a state in the EU.
To a great extent, Britain lost faith in itself. It lost its principles and innate identity. It became part of the Progressive world of nations. There is still a remnant, maybe even a large one that would like to restore that identity, not the empire. That remnant is what wants to break away from the EU. From being sucked into the all-powerful vortex of a single, politically centralized Europe.
Floridaman has no clue what the results of what he is doing will be, it's not a real estate deal that if it doesn't work out he can move on to the next one. You can't just bankrupt the country, screw the creditors and move on to the next turkey. Diplomacy is not transactional, if it was any any snake oil salesman could do it.
The sooner he's gone the better.
|