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

[Stevicus]

But the question is: is it tolerable young American soldiers risk their lives in useless wars that have nothing to do with the West?

To answer that question, I would say no. I'm not a complete peacenik, though. I recognize that there might be some rare instances where war is necessary, but it's a decision which shouldn't be made lightly.

I think the key is to work harder at preventing war.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

All right. But I said another thing.
I said that in the previous American administration, the US okayed the destabilization of the Mediterranean area (I ignore the reasons).
It deals with countries we Europeans would like to be at peace with. Those wars and turmoil exacerbate those countries and unleashes the clash of civilization (I mean...the facts of Paris and Nice speak for themselves).

Si vis pacem , para bellum. Peace brings more peace. I assure you Russia does want to be an ally of the West.

Viganò wrote a new letter to Trump underlining there are shady élites who want wars within Christendom.

 

[Stevicus]

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."

You're right, although about the issue with hacking, it seems that there are multiple countries which could do that, or even private organizations or individuals. We're vulnerable to that no matter what we do on the diplomatic front. However, I agree that we (US, Russia, and China) probably won't engage in direct warfare with each other. We might go back to more of a Cold War footing, and it could lead to a resurgence of the nuclear arms race.

 

[Estro Felino]

To answer that question, I would say no. I'm not a complete peacenik, though. I recognize that there might be some rare instances where war is necessary, but it's a decision which shouldn't be made lightly.

I think the key is to work harder at preventing war.

Wars to defend people.
But in most cases compromise and diplomacy are preferable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that depends on which cases of "being involved all over the world" you're talking about.

Some of them generate pretty large returns for the US, so cutting back on them makes about as much sense as trying to save money by quitting your job (hey - gas is expensive! We can't afford to commute!).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think that depends on which cases of "being involved all over the world" you're talking about.

Some of them generate pretty large returns for the US, so cutting back on them makes about as much sense as trying to save money by quitting your job (hey - gas is expensive! We can't afford to commute!).

The USA imports more than it sells abroad.
Its military also spends more abroad by simply being there. than the USA gets back in arms sales.
When it goes into action mode, it is like every bullet, shell and missile is stuffed full of thousand dollar bills.
The USA should be using other methods to live peaceably in the world than using its military.
Its present upping the stakes, in re arming its navy against its perceived fear about China and the associated Trade war, is a grave mistake, and will cost its people dear. China is not a military threat to America. It would be far better to make friends with them.
However there will soon be little that China needs from America, as the USA has forced them to fill the gaps in their supply chain, by denying them American goods. a self sufficient China is far more dangerous than as a trading partner.
There are however a large number of resources and industrial production, that America can only now get from China, or whose supply could easily be cut off by China in the event of hostilities by the USA.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Trump is right, in a way.

The Israelis, for example, spend many millions of dollars on the campaigns of U.S. politicians, who then support gigantic aid packages paid for by U.S. citizens, to Israel. The result of which is that Israeli children get free higher education, while U.S. children are paying hugely inflated prices for higher education. We "can't afford" to educate our own children because we have to pay for our own enormous military, and for a significant portion of Israel's military, as well. Leaving the Israelis free to send all their own kids to college.

With "allies" lie that, who needs enemies?

But you aren't going to hear Trump speak an ill word about the Israelis, because all his republican cronies are in their pockets (and so are the democrats, so don't expect Biden to utter a peep, either). So even though he's right, he isn't going to do a thing about it, but talk. And he isn't going to talk about any specifics.

Money is strange. As for Israel lobbying our politicians I don't agree with that practice, and that is on us accepting bribe money. I think, on the other hand, we could not stop giving foreign aid and then expect the dollar to retain its value worldwide. I don't know for sure, but having devalued it through printing we have to keep people using it. I think its fragile like bitcoin in a way. If people use it then it retains international value which also affects its value here and keeps things affordable at Walmart.

 

[PureX]

As for Israel lobbying our politicians I don't agree with that practice, and that is on us accepting bribe money.

I am endlessly puzzled by why Americans think the bribe-taker is entirely to blame for the corruption that results, while the bribe-payers are apparently just 'conducting business'. These countries are supposed to be our allies, and yet they are participating in the wholesale corruption of our government, robbing U. S. taxpayers of billions of their hard earned dollars, and supporting what is essentially an international criminal enterprise. This is not the behavior of an ally. This is the behavior of an enemy.

And I say the same thing about corporate conglomerates that support and participate in the same criminal enterprise via wholesale bribery and corruption of our government officials.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that depends on which cases of "being involved all over the world" you're talking about.

Some of them generate pretty large returns for the US, so cutting back on them makes about as much sense as trying to save money by quitting your job (hey - gas is expensive! We can't afford to commute!).

If these returns actually exist then the US Government can afford single payer universal healthcare as Scandinavia, Canada and UK can.

Unless the rule of the US budget is: public expenses (military), but private profits (that is , only very rich billionaires get these returns. Which is incredibly unfair to a population with no universal healthcare).

How can American people tolerate this unjustice?
It is beyond me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am endlessly puzzled by why Americans think the bribe-taker is entirely to blame for the corruption that results, while the bribe-payers are apparently just 'conducting business'. These countries are supposed to be our allies, and yet they are participating in the wholesale corruption of our government, robbing U. S. taxpayers of billions of their hard earned dollars, and supporting a criminal what is essentially an international criminal enterprise. This is not the behavior of an ally. This is the behavior of an enemy.

And I say the same thing about corporate conglomerates that support and participate in the same criminal enterprise via wholesale bribery and corruption of our government officials.

The money does it. The money literally transforms the mind of the one who takes it. In other words we are corrupting Israel with the money. We have them hooked, and this benefits us more than them. We are just printing the stuff. Its not like we have to construct it out of steel. Also the value we get is that they have spend it here, such is the nature of currency, so its net positive for us. The same is true I think of all foreign aid. Either they spend it here or they have to exchange it for other currency at a loss through a currency exchange, and then that currency still must make its way here.

The corruption and control, however, goes both ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The USA imports more than it sells abroad.
Its military also spends more abroad by simply being there. than the USA gets back in arms sales.
When it goes into action mode, it is like every bullet, shell and missile is stuffed full of thousand dollar bills.
The USA should be using other methods to live peaceably in the world than using its military.
Its present upping the stakes, in re arming its navy against its perceived fear about China and the associated Trade war, is a grave mistake, and will cost its people dear. China is not a military threat to America. It would be far better to make friends with them.
However there will soon be little that China needs from America, as the USA has forced them to fill the gaps in their supply chain, by denying them American goods. a self sufficient China is far more dangerous than as a trading partner.
There are however a large number of resources and industrial production, that America can only now get from China, or whose supply could easily be cut off by China in the event of hostilities by the USA.

I wasn't talking about military adventurism.

I was thinking more about things like Trump pulling the US out of the WHO. That's a decision that's in nobody's best interest, and hopefully one that President Biden quickly corrects.

Trump's approach to negotiations has been that everything is a zero-sum game: letting someone else get more necessarily means that he gets less, and vice versa. The idea of cooperation for mutual benefit seems completely alien to him.

... and unfortunately, that ridiculous approach has informed his foreign relations. He considers it a "win" to screw over the American people as long as he screws over some other country more. The US is suffering because of it.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

It can be one or both.
Examples:
I think Obama was popular because he's an intelligent, progressive and articulate person and followed on from a knuckle-dragger. The latter was also unpopular because of the Iraq war. (Tony Blair is regularly described by those on the left in the UK as being a war criminal).
Trump is viewed as a dangerous idiot, but you probably knew that.

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.

No not at all responsible. The foreign interference in Brexit came from Russia (who obviously want the break up of the EU).
A lot of the UK trade is with Europe and our trade deals around the world are based on us being a part of the EU, a powerful trading bloc. So we got good deals and the EU upholds various standards (food, H&S...)
Out of the EU, as a single small island we will be desperate for deals and have no leverage or negotiating muscle (compared to being in the EU). So, going forwards, the government is looking for new trade deals. We've got one with Liechtenstein, next up, the US. The US are looking to move in on our public health service which will result in higher prices for the service (and hence the public) and it fits with the rightwing tory long-term agenda of privitisation (I'm going off on one here, aren't I). The other big worry for Brits is food standards. The example we all know about in the UK is chlorinated chicken. Not allowed within the EU but we'll be free (indeed forced) to accept such delights. And yes, trade deals can take years, although the lying brexiteers said (I kid you not) such things could be sorted out "in an afternoon over a cup of tea."

Right, that's done my blood pressure no good so I'll stop now and go out for a run....

 

[Estro Felino]

It can be one or both.
Examples:
I think Obama was popular because he's an intelligent, progressive and articulate person and followed on from a knuckle-dragger. The latter was also unpopular because of the Iraq war. (Tony Blair is regularly described by those on the left in the UK as being a war criminal).
Trump is viewed as a dangerous idiot, but you probably knew that.



No not at all responsible. The foreign interference in Brexit came from Russia (who obviously want the break up of the EU).
A lot of the UK trade is with Europe and our trade deals around the world are based on us being a part of the EU, a powerful trading bloc. So we got good deals and the EU upholds various standards (food, H&S...)
Out of the EU, as a single small island we will be desperate for deals and have no leverage or negotiating muscle (compared to being in the EU). So, going forwards, the government is looking for new trade deals. We've got one with Liechtenstein, next up, the US. The US are looking to move in on our public health service which will result in higher prices for the service (and hence the public) and it fits with the rightwing tory long-term agenda of privitisation (I'm going off on one here, aren't I). The other big worry for Brits is food standards. The example we all know about in the UK is chlorinated chicken. Not allowed within the EU but we'll be free (indeed forced) to accept such delights. And yes, trade deals can take years, although the lying brexiteers said (I kid you not) such things could be sorted out "in an afternoon over a cup of tea."

Right, that's done my blood pressure no good so I'll stop now and go out for a run....

And still...it is very good to us that a powerful Nation like Britain is not in the EU.
So it can help us out , in case we decide to exit.

 

[Secret Chief]

And still...it is very good to us that a powerful Nation like Britain is not in the EU.
So it can help us out , in case we decide to exit.

I'm afraid the UK has only hastened its decline on the world stage by pulling out of the EU. Our only help is to show the EU countries what a terrible mistake it was.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

Can we have that in writing?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We might go back to more of a Cold War footing

Not too long ago the headlines read very similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've noticed in political debates (not just here but elsewhere across the internet), a lot of non-Americans are weighing on the current election and giving us their opinions on who should lead America. Is it because they care about America and the American people so much that they want only the best for us? Or is it more rooted in how America benefits them and their country, and whoever leads America may affect matters in their own country?

I can only speak for myself, and from my perspective on this. A few quick hits;

1) American culture and news dominates our airways. I am subjected to more American content than Australian, and American politics is commonly commented on and discussed on tv, radio and the internet. I'm sometimes surprised by some American's attitudes to this, as it seems like they either don't understand how prevalent this is globally, or just accept that what they consume is of course everywhere without much thought as to why, or the implications. That's by no means all Americans, but it's hard not to wonder how much of the world some folks have seen.

2) American politics impacts on us very heavily. That is not about caring how America benefits us and our country in the unidirectional way you seem to be suggesting. If the US decides to have a trade war with China, we're impacted. If the US pulls out of the WHO, we're impacted. If the US decides they want to go to war, we're impacted. We don't have the whip hand in the long and generally friendly relationship between our countries. We don't take aid, and we have announced ramp-ups in our military spending that takes it to...surprise, surprise...2% of our GDP. Excuse the overstated analogy, but if you're sitting in the ocean, you take heed of the weather.

3) Some of the issues you face have parallels here, if on a different level. Issues are more global now. I've taken more interest in global politics generally over the last 5 years. The last French election was the first where I spent any time studying candidates in detail, as an example. And if you go to Europe, there is commonly interest and discussion in other countries elections. The American elections might get the most in terms of this, but part of the reason this surprises Americans is because of the limited investment they have (often) in other countries elections and politics.

Ultimately, we non-Americans are interested, and might occasionally offer some good perspectives. If we don't, feel free to disagree or ignore us, but that wouldn't make us any different from some Americans.
You don't need to worry about our voting, but I'd be happy enough to discuss Australian politics with Americans...if I could find a few who spend the amount of time looking at our issues that we spend on American ones.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But the question is: is it tolerable young American soldiers risk their lives in useless wars that have nothing to do with the West?

It's not just US soldiers risking their lives in useless wars that have nothing to do with the West, though. I get that there are more Americans dying, but Australian soldiers died because we jumped in to a war to support the US.
It rankles a little to then hear talk in general terms about US allies, and how they take from the US. It's not so simple as that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To whom is Russia a threat?

Is that rhetorical?
You can start with Ukraine. Or the upcoming US elections, if you prefer.
I'm not suggesting you need to care, or that the US needs to intervene, but let's not pretend Russia is some fluffy bear you'd want to cuddle these days.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

It's more of an issue of who may get in control. Who may get those weapons. And if it gets bad enough being next door is highly advantageous. It is where a global effort is needed. Because that won't be a Cold War. There is no fear of MAD when you believe your actions are getting your into Paradise. Another ISIS, another Iranian Revolution, they get a hold of a nuke and can be more an existential crises for a number of potential targets. It's definitely something we'd rather be prepared for and safe rather than sorry.