Trump says US allies are "in many ways, worse than the enemy"

[Father Heathen]

The Europeans preferred leaders with competence, integrity, and decorum? Crazy!

 

[PureX]

All that money spent on warfare can be used for single payer universal healthcare instead.

Yep, that, too. But because our "allies" are now able to bribe our politicians and get them to award huge aid packages to their countries, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, we can't afford universal health care for our citizens, while those "allies" can.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yep, that, too. But because our "allies" are now able to bribe our politicians and get them to award huge aid packages to their countries, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, we can't afford universal health care for our citizens, while those "allies" can.

Not certainly European Countries.
Who want Americans to have all the benefits of free education and universal healthcare.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Now that we are over committed, we should either scale back or take over the world completely (not suggesting this). No I'm not suggesting this, but we have been in the position for over fifty years of a country that could take over the entire world! I am tired of hearing about sending our people out to fight. They belong here. Military action corrupts and ruins people internally. They don't ever get over it. With many years of action you also tend to develop merchant military people, and I don't want the US to become an exporter of merchant militias. Lets return to "Don't tread on me" status.

Diplomacy is getting awkward. Its been almost a century since WWII, and something has to change. The UN failed to unite the world. We tried it, and it hasn't worked. It was a system that we hoped would work, but systems always fail eventually.

I don't like that world leaders are concerned about our elections. This is not Ok. I'm tired of getting blamed for problems in other places. We need to shrink down our global dominance. Its time to let the sun set on the empire. This has to happen eventually. Why not now?

I agree that its time for the world to take care of themselves for a change. I think America has been taken for granted and if people want to see dangerous regimes get stronger and stronger then so be it. Let the next conflicts happen without US involvement and support.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What's rarely mentioned is that this was traditionally by US design. The US didn't want European nations to be militarily powerful and able to act independently, so they were incentivised to stay dependent on the US.

Yes that is a great point, and we have a responsibility because of that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree that its time for the world to take care of themselves for a change. I think America has been taken for granted and if people want to see dangerous regimes get stronger and stronger then so be it. Let the next conflicts happen without US involvement and support.

I think we just shouldn't have bases all over the world for another fifty years and have our way in everything for another fifty years. I also don't like pondering what kind of trouble the CIA will be getting us into, next time. Its like if my penis could jump out and make babies while I was sleeping then that would be what the CIA is like. It goes out there and does clandestine operations that have side effects. It stops USSR in Afghanistan but then gets us into a war there. It helps Libya, but then that collapses the country. It does all of these things without our public's express approval, and part of the reason is that we have bases everywhere. There's always an excuse why the public can't be informed, and its usually some fetid lie. Why did we bug Angela Merkel's phone? Its absurd, but that absurdity comes from having so much of a military presence all around the world. This situation is not good for the concept of America. Its changing us.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yep, that, too. But because our "allies" are now able to bribe our politicians and get them to award huge aid packages to their countries, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, we can't afford universal health care for our citizens, while those "allies" can.

The USA spends far more on health than any of its allies, per head of population.
Even though these countries cover all their populations fully. And the USA only partially by default.

Any of the European health systems transposed to the USA would cost less than now.
Both for the individual and the country as a whole.

 

[PureX]

The USA spends far more on health than any of its allies, per head of population.
Even though these countries cover all their populations fully. And the USA only partially by default.

Any of the European health systems transposed to the USA would cost less than now.
Both for the individual and the country as a whole.

But the health care conglomerates can bribe our politicians to make sure we never get universal health care, that would cut their huge profits.

It all comes down to that bribery. To the fact that anyone with a pile of money can bribe politicians to give them whatever they want. Which is why heath care costs U.S. citizens twice what it costs citizens in other countries. EVERYTHING in our healthcare system is wildly overpriced, because the corporation involved in providing it have bought off our politicians to make sure they can keep price-gouging us indefinitely.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's because we don't exist in a bubble, and America is so large and has such hegemony that what happens here does impact other countries.

And with that, would come some responsibilities -- sort of noblesse oblige -- which I think most American leaders have understood.

 

[Stevicus]

It's undeniable that the NATO countries generally do not pay what the agreement says they should. I think a bit of pressure from the US on the European countries to pay their share is perfectly justified.

As to whether NATO, as a structure, is still appropriate for the modern age, that's a tough question. The threat from Russia to Europe is still there. But Turkey doesn't really belong in it any more. And now there is an emerging threat from China towards its neighbours, in the Pacific and on the Asian land mass, which is probably far more significant for the future. So the USA could be forgiven for thinking that Europe big enough and rich enough to look after itself, these days, while it turns its attention to China - which is developing the hallmarks of an Orwellian, IT-enabled totalitarian state.

The USA came out of WW2 as the unchallenged chief defender of democracy. Looking at current events, this role is still needed in the world. But whether it will mainly be a military role in future, and whether it will be Europe-orientated, must be open to doubt.

I sometimes wonder just how much of a threat Russia can possibly be to NATO in Europe, other than the threat of mutually assured destruction. The combined populations of the NATO members on the European continent (excluding UK, Canada, and the US) would far outnumber that of Russia, and their industrial capacity and technology should be capable of fielding a much larger army than that of Russia's. If they've chosen not to do so, then that's really on them - especially if they truly believe that Russia is that much of a threat.

(The way some people talk these days, they seem to insinuate the capitalist Russia is more a threat today than the Soviet Union ever was. But I never believed all the wild paranoid talk about "evil empires" and "Soviet expansionism" back in those days either.)

The U.S. was not so much a defender of democracy or freedom, as many of the regimes we defended were not free at all (such as the Shah of Iran, South Vietnam, Chile, Haiti, and many others). Western Europe was free, of course, but there were strong fears of a possible Russian invasion. But I think it was more of a case where they were more afraid of us than we were of them. Whenever I think of the situation with either China or Russia, I always keep in mind that the fact that those two countries suffered the major brunt of damage and loss of life in World War II. Their behavior and perceptions of the world may be influenced by that part of their historical consciousness.

I think what we're dealing with now are the consequences of the Cold War. China may still be a totalitarian police state, but they're also quasi-capitalist and have been in bed with Western business interests. Russia is also capitalist, more or less. It seems more like a "gangster republic" of sorts, but it's clear that they're not really into the whole communism thing like they used to be.

But many of the nations which are deemed threats that America must deal with are mainly the smaller nations which are far less powerful than Russia or China - or any nation of Europe, for that matter. Sure, there are states like North Korea with nuclear weapons (or the ability/desire to build them), but if they ever use them, the retaliatory strike from the US would completely devastate them.

 

[Stevicus]

Besides North Korea and Russia, does anyone prefer Trump, why pick on the Germans?

He picks on everybody eventually. It was just the Germans' turn this time.

 

[Nimos]

He picks on everybody eventually. It was just the Germans' turn this time.

Yeah, I just read that he picked on the US doctors in regards to Covid. Which I assume is to try to make the Covid issue in the US not seem as bad as it is.

Even if he is right, which I doubt, since you can't trust anything he say. What type of mentally idiot would say something like that, it makes all the doctors look like freaking wolves, so instead of blaming them since they most likely did not come up with the rules in the first place, he should have worked towards changing them... he is such an idiot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I sometimes wonder just how much of a threat Russia can possibly be to NATO in Europe, other than the threat of mutually assured destruction. The combined populations of the NATO members on the European continent (excluding UK, Canada, and the US) would far outnumber that of Russia, and their industrial capacity and technology should be capable of fielding a much larger army than that of Russia's. If they've chosen not to do so, then that's really on them - especially if they truly believe that Russia is that much of a threat.

The US, Russia, and China are at such points that I just don't see any of those three engaging directly in warfare, because it's going to be more costly in every regard compared to how we can do things now. Hacking, for example, involves no fighting, no bullets, no bloodshed, yet the destruction can still be severe. Another example would be things like NAFTA or Trump's trade war, because those things damage America while benefiting those countries (particularly China).
Proxy wars, however, are likely to continue into the future for "economic benefit."

 

[Stevicus]

Now that we are over committed, we should either scale back or take over the world completely (not suggesting this). No I'm not suggesting this, but we have been in the position for over fifty years of a country that could take over the entire world!

I wouldn't suggest it either, but I'll admit I have thought of the possibility. I've also thought that, at the very least, there could be a peaceful socialist unification of all the nations of the Americas, which would make us into a solid, unified bloc able to withstand anything the Eastern Hemisphere could throw at us.

I am tired of hearing about sending our people out to fight. They belong here. Military action corrupts and ruins people internally. They don't ever get over it. With many years of action you also tend to develop merchant military people, and I don't want the US to become an exporter of merchant militias. Lets return to "Don't tread on me" status.

I agree completely. Another thing to consider is that the people that live in the countries where we send our troops (or interfere in other ways) never really get over it either. We've intervened in both China and Russia before too, and while most Americans have forgotten these things, the Chinese and Russians have not. The Iranians haven't forgotten that we installed the Shah once upon a time.

All of this corrupts the world, too, and corrupts Americans overall. The citizenry becomes used to these things, but also become so wrapped up in their own lives and hear about these things on the news just before the weather report and the sports scores. Most don't really know where these places are or what we're actually doing there. All they hear is "Axis of Evil," and suddenly it's "Let's bomb them back to the Stone Age!"

Diplomacy is getting awkward. Its been almost a century since WWII, and something has to change. The UN failed to unite the world. We tried it, and it hasn't worked. It was a system that we hoped would work, but systems always fail eventually.

It failed because we wanted to have our cake and eat it, too. We wanted wealth, power, luxury (which is common to many large empires over the course of history), and we also wanted other countries to fear us and be wary of the amount of firepower we could pour on them if they ever get out of line.

But on the other hand, we also wanted everyone in the world to like us and think of us as some kind of bastion of freedom, the shining city on the hill, and so forth. Sometimes, the propaganda was spread on so thick it was unbelievable, as if our government was desperate for the world to think of us as Captain America, defender of freedom and crusader for niceness, goodness, and righteousness.

I think if our government had taken a more honorable and upfront approach, we might have achieved more favorable results.

Case in point: A little over 60 years ago, when Castro's Revolutionary Army overthrew the mobbed-up Batista government in Cuba, the US government ostensibly panicked and considered a serious threat to national security. While they were Marxist-oriented, they weren't an automatic Soviet satellite at that early stage, although we treated them as such just the same.

Of course, we could have just left them alone to let them run their country how they see fit, while keeping an eye out for the Soviets, but that wasn't good enough.

If they really were such a grave threat, we could have just invaded them outright, using the full force of our military might. The Soviets wouldn't have declared war on us over that, just like we didn't declare war on them for invading Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

But we didn't really want to do that, because it would hurt our image, which was still all important. We couldn't just launch a Normandy-style mass invasion of Cuba, because that would make us look bad - like we're a bunch of bullies.

Instead, our government trained and equipped Cubans as guerilla fighters to make it look like it was Cubans overthrowing their own government. How could the U.S. be blamed or implicated for that? Or so they must have thought.

It was all because we wanted the world to "like us." So, our leaders came up with this plan, and they apparently thought it could work. But it seems patently obvious that inordinate attention to our image and reputation was much more important to our leaders than actually coming up with a plan that would have better chance of success.

Or they could just go with the first idea, and just leave them alone. That would have saved us a lot of headache later on. After the Bay of Pigs, Castro had no other choice but to appeal to the Soviet Union for aid, which is what led to the whole Missile Crisis.

If we want to be seen as a bunch of nice guys, then all we have to do is be nice. Leave these countries alone to govern themselves.

If we want to be seen as the "big bad" or think we have some sort of "empire," then we have to operate the imperial way, which may not always be the nice way.

It's these "halfway" solutions which seem to go nowhere, since all it seems to do is make everyone mad at America, and it doesn't achieve the desired objective.

I don't like that world leaders are concerned about our elections. This is not Ok. I'm tired of getting blamed for problems in other places. We need to shrink down our global dominance. Its time to let the sun set on the empire. This has to happen eventually. Why not now?

I think we can still be a great nation while remaining neutral, but not isolated. A lot of people associate neutrality with isolationism, but I've never understood the logic behind that point of view. We can still have diplomatic relations. We can still have commerce, cultural exchange, freedom of travel, etc. We wouldn't cut ourselves off from the world, but we could take a more laissez-faire approach to geopolitics.

I don't really believe there's any chance of any government or world leader having some ambition of world conquest. Not in the nuclear age, there won't be any more Napoleons or Hitlers. Of course, there's always a chance that some leader with nuclear weapons might go totally mad and "push the button," so to speak. So, I guess we might keep a few nukes around. In case someone launches at us, we can launch a counter-strike so as to ensure that we all go up together.

 

[Estro Felino]

I sometimes wonder just how much of a threat Russia can possibly be to NATO in Europe, other than the threat of mutually assured destruction. The combined populations of the NATO members on the European continent (excluding UK, Canada, and the US) would far outnumber that of Russia, and their industrial capacity and technology should be capable of fielding a much larger army than that of Russia's. If they've chosen not to do so, then that's really on them - especially if they truly believe that Russia is that much of a threat.
.

To whom is Russia a threat?
To my country it is Heaven. We love Russia. My country is filled with industrial entrepreneurs with no marketplace. Russia is a huge marketplace needing industrial entrepreneurs and investors.

 

[Stevicus]

For me, it's both.

I have plenty of friends and family in the US, and I care about their well-being.

At the same time, I realize that in a lot of ways, Canada is the tail being wagged by the American dog. If your economy tanks, you're taking us with you. It's in my personal interest and the interest of my country to see the US and its people thrive.

And there's also issue of human rights: human rights abuses anywhere in the world are the business of every person regardless of nationally, and the US seems to be having more than its share of them lately.

Yes, I'll admit that we do have quite a number of internal problems at present. That's why many people believe that we just can't afford to be involved all over the world as we have been. We have issues closer to home that need to be attended to.

 

[Stevicus]

In some instances I feel it's in the best interest of the world. Such as, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and some very troubling people nearby around around. Iran getting nuclear weapons is also an issue. Better to keep a presence in the area. Withdrawing lead to clearing the way for ISIS, and is very problematic. We need to support liberal and progressive Muslims, we need to prop them up, we need to do what we can to help them win over those who would enslave and repress the world.
Ultimately, Uncle Sam got himself too deep into that mess and there is no getting out of it without very dire consequences. And in the mean time we need those liberal Muslims alive and speaking and winning minds. Because as long as extremism and radicalizing thrives in the area, the area having nuclear weapons is a potential nightmare.

I think the best way to maintain positive control over these regions is by striving to improve relations among the major powers of the world. I've observed that that's the main reason we seem to have these problems in various parts of the world. These countries and factions are not a threat because they're really that powerful, in and of themselves. But they've been in a position where they can capitalize on the rivalries of the major powers and use that to their own ends.

The reason we can't invade Iran is not because Iran is that powerful, but it's because it will likely trigger a hostile reaction from either China or Russia (or possibly both). It's also the same reason North Korea is such a thorn in our government's side.

I had nightmares about nuclear war when I was a kid. We never knew if it could ever happen, but just the thought that it might happen did seem rather perilous. It could still happen, I suppose.

It's even possible that someone could steal whatever materials might be needed to build a nuclear bomb. That's what scares me. I don't think that any established government would be that suicidal. I don't even think North Korea or Iran are that crazy either, since they would be wiped out if they ever tried launching a nuke. But some crazy guy who thinks they're on a mission from God - that could happen.

 

[Stevicus]

Let's see... who would benefit most from a weakened our dismantled NATO? Why, Puppet Master Putin, that guy Comrade Trump says he trusts more than our own intelligence agencies! You know, that guy from Russia - the country that was putting bounties on the heads of American soldiers who Comrade Trump refused to confront his Puppet Master about.

Nuff said.

So, you think Russia would invade the rest of Europe? The last time there was a major war in Europe, Russia lost over 20 million of its people. Do you seriously believe that they really want to go through that again?

 

[Stevicus]

Presumably preferring Obama over Trump! Obama was welcomed by crowds of well-wishers as I recall, when he visited Europe. Trump...not so much...

It seems Trump has that effect on people.

It goes up and down with the president (and their global activities).

I wonder if that's based more on what they say and the image they exude, or is it more a matter of what they actually do and the practical effects it might have on the globe or any nation in particular.

I'm not looking (as a Brit) to benefit from America. What I would like is to be not impacted in a negative way by America. Specifically as a current major example: Without going over the whole thing in boring detail, in summary- with the UK out of the EU we are in distinct danger from the US - in things to do with economics, workers rights, food standards, our much loved public health service etc. Our PM is apparently hanging on to see if Trump wins to decide on whether to crash out with no deal with the EU.

I can understand this, although the US-UK relationship goes further back than what's been going on recently. We got off to a rocky start, but we slowly patched things up and became friends over time. But are you suggesting that Trump or the US might be responsible for the UK leaving the EU? We're already trading partners, so I'm not sure what kind of deal they can make at this point, no matter who wins the election.

There are some Americans who feel similarly threatened by Britain. I've heard some conspiracy theories about the British royal family and how they still secretly rule America. I don't give it much attention, but I think it's still a leftover fear from our Revolutionary days.

My understanding is that there is much money to be made from wars. Disaster capitalism and all that. Construction contracts, obtaining or protecting resources, military "aid"...
Americans do suffer and die abroad, but then of course Americans have killed a lot of people too. This comes from a long history of American involvement in other countries, both covertly and overtly. Obviously they are not unique in doing this but the country has been more than keen to stick its nose in. Americans dying abroad comes because their government sends them abroad with weaponry to liberate countries, to bring freedom and democracy or whatever else it is sold as (the US didn't care about such concepts in WW2, until the attack on Pearl Harbour). Making the world safe for selling burgers and coke. A lot of people would like to see that mindset come to an end.

I agree, although it actually started with WW1, when Americans were convinced to support a war to "make the world safe for democracy." We also were a signatory to the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the 1920s, which outlawed aggressive warfare and invasion - although the US refrained from obligating itself to taking any military action against any aggressor. So, in theory, we did care about freedom and democracy in the world, but we didn't really feel obligated to do anything to defend it at that point.

In the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans may have still wanted to stay out of the war, but the tide of public opinion was slowly changing. There was actually a very strong public relations campaign to encourage Americans to support a more active role in world affairs. We implemented a peacetime draft in 1940. Americans weren't just sitting silent with their heads in the sand when the Japanese suddenly surprised us at Pearl Harbor. FDR made it clear that he wasn't happy with the Axis powers, and it was also clear that the US was supporting the Allies. We were no longer truly neutral after Lend-Lease passed.

But some mistakes were made, which Americans have been reminded of ever since. One mistake often cited is that we should have joined the League of Nations and given that organization greater teeth. But even if we had joined, we didn't put as much investment in the military back in those days, so our forces were rather small. We also reduced the size of our naval forces, although by the mid-30s, we were seeing the need to build them back up (when the Two Ocean Navy Act was passed).

But Japan and Germany had been building up their forces and were years ahead of us in the arms race, so we needed time to catch up.

We also learned from the mistake of Appeasement - not specifically our mistake, but recognized as a grave mistake just the same.

So, we learned that we need to be always vigilant, always on alert, and always maintaining a large, well-equipped military force. And we certainly have that.

We also learned to not appease anyone. But I think our government overdid that part to a great extent. We were certainly not going to appease Grenada.

 

[Stevicus]

As a citizen of a very loyal Nation to the United States of America, I say this:

The USA, instead of using their military forces to bring peace and to defend their allies (that is my country too), they do not mind supporting wars going on in the Middle East.
Which exacerbates those populations...and these populations discharge their anger onto Europe through massive migration waves. Not that peaceful people join these migration waves too.
Not to mention that the turmoil caused by those wars prevents Europe from maintaining good relations with all the countries surrounding Europe.

As Tulsi Gabbard said, there is one thing that the USA should do. Withdraw all troops so no American soldier will ever die in those useless wars that have nothing to do with the West.
Acknowledging that the NATO must be reformed and that Europe needs to be defended. By Europeans.

I think the world has changed a lot since NATO was first formed, and with the advances in technology and the kinds of weapons which are available to multiple governments, the kinds of wars which were fought in the past are not really feasible. In the nuclear era, there's always a risk that some madman could push the button and end us all. We lived with that fear all through the Cold War.