Trump's foreign policy compared to "Make America great"

[frigidweirdo]

Trump questions NATO, Asia nuclear weapons ahead of Washington summit

So, Trump wants to make America great again.

But his foreign policy seems to be based on ignorance of what makes a country great in terms of power among foreign nations.

He wants NATO to change, he wants other NATO members to put more effort and money in, and reduce the US's role.

With Japan and South Korea, who are important with China and North Korea policy, he wants them to pay more and to do more.

Essentially he's talking about reducing the role of the US, making the US less important in world affairs, less important for US allies and potentially making many countries not need the US any more.

This wouldn't make the US great again.

He's essentially looking at this from a business point of view, which I can understand. You cut costs, you get rid of things that aren't essential. You make it about reducing costs and potentially increasing income and making more profit.

However he's only thinking in terms of money.

The right often sees power as an important currency too and he'll be destroying this.

Is this a contradiction for those who support Trump?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Hillarys Foreign Policy: We need to be more like Russia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hillarys Foreign Policy: We need to be more like Russia

This isn't about Hillary's foreign policy. This is about Trump's. Stay on topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump questions NATO, Asia nuclear weapons ahead of Washington summit

So, Trump wants to make America great again.

But his foreign policy seems to be based on ignorance of what makes a country great in terms of power among foreign nations.

He wants NATO to change, he wants other NATO members to put more effort and money in, and reduce the US's role.

With Japan and South Korea, who are important with China and North Korea policy, he wants them to pay more and to do more.

Essentially he's talking about reducing the role of the US, making the US less important in world affairs, less important for US allies and potentially making many countries not need the US any more.

This wouldn't make the US great again.

He's essentially looking at this from a business point of view, which I can understand. You cut costs, you get rid of things that aren't essential. You make it about reducing costs and potentially increasing income and making more profit.

However he's only thinking in terms of money.

The right often sees power as an important currency too and he'll be destroying this.

Is this a contradiction for those who support Trump?

Conservatives’ support for Trump is so riddled with contradictions that they don’t even bother to respond anymore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hillarys Foreign Policy: We need to be more like Russia

As already correctly noted: this fails as a red herring fallacy – the topic is Trump, not Clinton.

And thanks for confirming the fact that conservatives can’t even defend their support for the likes of Trump.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump questions NATO, Asia nuclear weapons ahead of Washington summit

So, Trump wants to make America great again.

But his foreign policy seems to be based on ignorance of what makes a country great in terms of power among foreign nations.

He wants NATO to change, he wants other NATO members to put more effort and money in, and reduce the US's role.

With Japan and South Korea, who are important with China and North Korea policy, he wants them to pay more and to do more.

Essentially he's talking about reducing the role of the US, making the US less important in world affairs, less important for US allies and potentially making many countries not need the US any more.

This wouldn't make the US great again.

He's essentially looking at this from a business point of view, which I can understand. You cut costs, you get rid of things that aren't essential. You make it about reducing costs and potentially increasing income and making more profit.

However he's only thinking in terms of money.

The right often sees power as an important currency too and he'll be destroying this.

Is this a contradiction for those who support Trump?

Actually Obama's foreign policy or (lack of) has have had Japan doing more.


Prompted by China, Japan Seeks Largest Military Budget Ever

Also I have been bitching about this topic for years, I am sick and tired of the US taxpayers and US military picking up the tab for the socialist leaches in NATO...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump questions NATO, Asia nuclear weapons ahead of Washington summit

So, Trump wants to make America great again.

But his foreign policy seems to be based on ignorance of what makes a country great in terms of power among foreign nations.

He wants NATO to change, he wants other NATO members to put more effort and money in, and reduce the US's role.

With Japan and South Korea, who are important with China and North Korea policy, he wants them to pay more and to do more.

Essentially he's talking about reducing the role of the US, making the US less important in world affairs, less important for US allies and potentially making many countries not need the US any more.

This wouldn't make the US great again.

He's essentially looking at this from a business point of view, which I can understand. You cut costs, you get rid of things that aren't essential. You make it about reducing costs and potentially increasing income and making more profit.

However he's only thinking in terms of money.

The right often sees power as an important currency too and he'll be destroying this.

Is this a contradiction for those who support Trump?

Actually Obama's foreign policy or (lack of) has have had Japan doing more.


Prompted by China, Japan Seeks Largest Military Budget Ever

Also I have been bitching about this topic for years, I am sick and tired of the US taxpayers and US military picking up the tab for the socialist leaches in NATO...

Off topic again.

We're not talking about Obama's foreign policy. We're talking about Trump's.

Do you want to talk about this topic?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump questions NATO, Asia nuclear weapons ahead of Washington summit

So, Trump wants to make America great again.

But his foreign policy seems to be based on ignorance of what makes a country great in terms of power among foreign nations.

He wants NATO to change, he wants other NATO members to put more effort and money in, and reduce the US's role.

With Japan and South Korea, who are important with China and North Korea policy, he wants them to pay more and to do more.

Essentially he's talking about reducing the role of the US, making the US less important in world affairs, less important for US allies and potentially making many countries not need the US any more.

This wouldn't make the US great again.

He's essentially looking at this from a business point of view, which I can understand. You cut costs, you get rid of things that aren't essential. You make it about reducing costs and potentially increasing income and making more profit.

However he's only thinking in terms of money.

The right often sees power as an important currency too and he'll be destroying this.

Is this a contradiction for those who support Trump?

Actually Obama's foreign policy or (lack of) has have had Japan doing more.


Prompted by China, Japan Seeks Largest Military Budget Ever

Also I have been bitching about this topic for years, I am sick and tired of the US taxpayers and US military picking up the tab for the socialist leaches in NATO...

Off topic again.

We're not talking about Obama's foreign policy. We're talking about Trump's.

Do you want to talk about this topic?

That's not off topic....

Can you comprehend my post?

 

[pismoe]

all I have heard Trump say is make the allies pay their way and that's ok with me .

 

[frigidweirdo]

all I have heard Trump say is make the allies pay their way and that's ok with me .

But that doesn't take into account other factors.

The US is the main player, it wants its allies in order to be powerful. What happens if those allies suddenly decide there are no real advantages to being with the US?

I mean, look at Belgium. It didn't go to war with in Iraq in 2003, and yet is suffering the consequences of the military action there. Were it not an ally of the US, maybe these attacks would never have happened.

So, if they have to "pay their way" and yet get more instability and lack of security, there's no reason to be with the USA.

So maybe the EU will find a way to not be with the EU, become more powerful on its own, and leave the USA behind.

What then for the US? Is it "great" any more? Or just another country?

 

[whitehall]

The last time I looked Obama, the tango king, was still president and nobody, I mean nobody on the left his bragging about his foreign policy. Everything Trump says makes sense compared to the eight year apology tour we just witnessed.

 

[Missourian]

Why are we going broke subsiding the military defense of other countries? The ONLY countries we should be subsidizing the defense of is South Korea. We broke it, we bought it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why are we going broke subsiding the military defense of other countries? The ONLY countries we should be subsidizing the defense of is South Korea. We broke it, we bought it.

Because often power is bought with money. The US has wanted this power and has got it.

Does the US not want to be great any more?

 

[Missourian]

Why are we going broke subsiding the military defense of other countries? The ONLY countries we should be subsidizing the defense of is South Korea. We broke it, we bought it.

Because often power is bought with money. The US has wanted this power and has got it.

Does the US not want to be great any more?

We will still be great...greater, because we won't have so much debt. What good has "this power" done for us? Anything? We are not the policemen of the world. And pretending we can police the world has brought us nothing but problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why are we going broke subsiding the military defense of other countries? The ONLY countries we should be subsidizing the defense of is South Korea. We broke it, we bought it.

Because often power is bought with money. The US has wanted this power and has got it.

Does the US not want to be great any more?

We will still be great...greater, because we won't have so much debt. What good has "this power" done for us? Anything? We are not the policemen of the world. And pretending we can police the world has brought us nothing but problems.

Doesn't work like that.

What has the power done? Quite a lot actually.

Invading Iraq, for example. It weakened OPEC and has led to lower oil prices, and the weakening of enemies like Venezuela, Iran and Russia.

In Latin America the US has gained lots by making allies with countries, then using the World Bank to fuck over these countries and make large profits for American companies.
Such industries like the water industry, dairy industry etc were privatized simple because of US action in these regions.

The question is this. Why did the US go into Vietnam? Why did the US go into South Korea? What purpose? To stop the enemy for increasing. The enemy has changed from Communism to a multitude.

China is the big enemy emerging. China basically has most of Africa in its back pocket with its support and not give a shit policy. The US needs allies if it is to compete with China, otherwise China will be the "world's police" (meaning they do what the fuck they like when they like and all for their own interests, like resources) and the US will be a secondary (read: not great) player in the international field.

As they say, you have to spend money to make money, you have to show people you're bling bling and they'll follow the bling bling, no one follows the cheapskates.

 

[Missourian]

American Shale Oil weakened OPEC.
Iraq we could have taken care of all by ourselves.
What does Belgium do for us?
If China wants to be the big man on campus, let them. They'll learn just like we have.

What good is the power we don't use if we are bankrupting our grandchildren.

 

[frigidweirdo]

American Shale Oil weakened OPEC.
Iraq we could have taken care of all by ourselves.
What does Belgium do for us?
If China wants to be the big man on campus, let them. They'll learn just like we have.

What good is the power we don't use if we are bankrupting our grandchildren.

American shale oil helped to reduce oil prices. However Hugo Chavez was rebuilding OPEC as a strong and powerful cartel. This was against US interests. Destroying this cartel, with three of the four leaders of countries who severely opposed the US (Chavez, Hussein and Gaddafi) and with Iran against the ropes, oil prices dropped.

However we're talking 2003 here, and in 2003 US oil shale wasn't producing anywhere near as much as it is now. Also, OPEC has increased production to reduce oil prices as a strategy to try and bankrupt US oil.

Yes, the US could have taken care of Iraq all on its own. Unless of course others decided to fight alongside Iraq, which they didn't. It would have cost the US more had the UK not been involved, and if others hadn't been involved in Afghanistan. Add on the costs of UK participation and take it out of the US economy and what do you have? Alliances can often make things cheaper when you're into warring.

What does Belgium do for the US?
What does Lesotho do for China? Seriously, a country of 2 million people, most people don't know where it is, it has a HIV rate of 25%, it is said in Masaru, the capital, that 40% of child bearing aged women have HIV/AIDS. So why would China go and build a brand spanking new government building for a country that needs new hospitals?

Votes. In the UN China is building lots of support. Sure, it has its veto, but legitimacy is a different thing. The US gets legitimacy by having enough countries backing it, and small countries have the same number of votes as large countries.

Also, Belgium's capital is also the capital of the EU. Belgian support is also EU support and the EU is the US's largest ally.

If China wants to be the big man, then China will be "great". And therefore the US won't be.

I'm not justifying US foreign policy here. I'm saying that in order to be "great" you have to have such a foreign policy.

Trump says he wants to make America great again, but has a foreign policy that won't make America great.

 

[Missourian]

American Shale Oil weakened OPEC.
Iraq we could have taken care of all by ourselves.
What does Belgium do for us?
If China wants to be the big man on campus, let them. They'll learn just like we have.

What good is the power we don't use if we are bankrupting our grandchildren.

American shale oil helped to reduce oil prices. However Hugo Chavez was rebuilding OPEC as a strong and powerful cartel. This was against US interests. Destroying this cartel, with three of the four leaders of countries who severely opposed the US (Chavez, Hussein and Gaddafi) and with Iran against the ropes, oil prices dropped.

However we're talking 2003 here, and in 2003 US oil shale wasn't producing anywhere near as much as it is now. Also, OPEC has increased production to reduce oil prices as a strategy to try and bankrupt US oil.

Yes, the US could have taken care of Iraq all on its own. Unless of course others decided to fight alongside Iraq, which they didn't. It would have cost the US more had the UK not been involved, and if others hadn't been involved in Afghanistan. Add on the costs of UK participation and take it out of the US economy and what do you have? Alliances can often make things cheaper when you're into warring.

What does Belgium do for the US?
What does Lesotho do for China? Seriously, a country of 2 million people, most people don't know where it is, it has a HIV rate of 25%, it is said in Masaru, the capital, that 40% of child bearing aged women have HIV/AIDS. So why would China go and build a brand spanking new government building for a country that needs new hospitals?

Votes. In the UN China is building lots of support. Sure, it has its veto, but legitimacy is a different thing. The US gets legitimacy by having enough countries backing it, and small countries have the same number of votes as large countries.

Also, Belgium's capital is also the capital of the EU. Belgian support is also EU support and the EU is the US's largest ally.

If China wants to be the big man, then China will be "great". And therefore the US won't be.

I'm not justifying US foreign policy here. I'm saying that in order to be "great" you have to have such a foreign policy.

Trump says he wants to make America great again, but has a foreign policy that won't make America great.

Wut? The U.S. can't be great unless China is not great? That's ridiculous. What makes America not great is borrowing from China to subsidize European defense. That's just stupid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

American Shale Oil weakened OPEC.
Iraq we could have taken care of all by ourselves.
What does Belgium do for us?
If China wants to be the big man on campus, let them. They'll learn just like we have.

What good is the power we don't use if we are bankrupting our grandchildren.

American shale oil helped to reduce oil prices. However Hugo Chavez was rebuilding OPEC as a strong and powerful cartel. This was against US interests. Destroying this cartel, with three of the four leaders of countries who severely opposed the US (Chavez, Hussein and Gaddafi) and with Iran against the ropes, oil prices dropped.

However we're talking 2003 here, and in 2003 US oil shale wasn't producing anywhere near as much as it is now. Also, OPEC has increased production to reduce oil prices as a strategy to try and bankrupt US oil.

Yes, the US could have taken care of Iraq all on its own. Unless of course others decided to fight alongside Iraq, which they didn't. It would have cost the US more had the UK not been involved, and if others hadn't been involved in Afghanistan. Add on the costs of UK participation and take it out of the US economy and what do you have? Alliances can often make things cheaper when you're into warring.

What does Belgium do for the US?
What does Lesotho do for China? Seriously, a country of 2 million people, most people don't know where it is, it has a HIV rate of 25%, it is said in Masaru, the capital, that 40% of child bearing aged women have HIV/AIDS. So why would China go and build a brand spanking new government building for a country that needs new hospitals?

Votes. In the UN China is building lots of support. Sure, it has its veto, but legitimacy is a different thing. The US gets legitimacy by having enough countries backing it, and small countries have the same number of votes as large countries.

Also, Belgium's capital is also the capital of the EU. Belgian support is also EU support and the EU is the US's largest ally.

If China wants to be the big man, then China will be "great". And therefore the US won't be.

I'm not justifying US foreign policy here. I'm saying that in order to be "great" you have to have such a foreign policy.

Trump says he wants to make America great again, but has a foreign policy that won't make America great.

Wut? The U.S. can't be great unless China is not great? That's ridiculous. What makes America not great is borrowing from China to subsidize European defense. That's just stupid.

I didn't say that. I said the US would not be great with such a foreign policy AND China doing what it is going to be doing too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The last time I looked Obama, the tango king, was still president and nobody, I mean nobody on the left his bragging about his foreign policy. Everything Trump says makes sense compared to the eight year apology tour we just witnessed.

Nobody is bragging about his foreign policy. That doesn't mean anyone would be bragging about Trump's foreign policy after 7 years.

Trump's policy "makes sense" to people who limit themselves to reading only the headline and if you're lucky the first line of any report or article.