This is not a pro Trump or anti Trump post. It is an opportunity for all the Trump lovers and Trump haters to prove how smart they are.
What Role should America take in geopolitics?
Why should we take it?
Do we have a track record of setting and achieving international objectives?
what causes are worth engaging and risking lives of the young?
what is the best way to finance engagement?
Should the president be able to act without consent of congress?
Should the US act without consent of The United Nations?
Whose interests are protected by our military?
After that please advise our strategic and vital interests in trouble spots.
I think the President has just proven that he should not be able to act without consent of congress.
In doing so, he is no better than Putin aka a dictator.
Obama mentioned “sorrowfully” that he wasn’t a dictator and got excoriated for it on talk radio. The current President fulfills Obama’s wish and receives nothing but praise from talk radio and condemnation from diplomats who see the actual aftermath of that action.
Whose interests are protected by our military?
At the moment, Saudi Arabia’s. And Saudi Arabia is not our friend. Don’t forget all the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi.
The lack of interest in this thread demonstrates why generic thread titles are worthless. No one knows what the thread is about and so they don’t bother to open it.
Possibly. Many times the interest of the United Nations is not the same as the interest of The U.S. The United Nations considers Israel to be one of their biggest offenders. The U.S. considers Israel to be one of our best friends.
The questions were proposed in an attempt to stimulate a debate on our foreign policy objectives. Not to answer the questions one by one.
For example. Our defense spending and government spending in general has always benefitted a few like Boeing and the expense of competitors, The big three are a good example and Harley Davidson. So defense spending is anti competitive and anti free market. Therefore being a superpower promotes concentration of wealth and economic dislocation.
Our defense posture is necessary to protect us investment abroad. Yet very few own investments abroad and once again those that do are large corporations and very wealthy groups of people. So we tax the middle class and working class to pay for police protection of overseas assets. Those workers paying taxes make it safe for their employers to shift assets overseas without normal associated risk.
Our military is contemplated as defensive yet we often act offensively. What are we defending beyond our borders, not the interest of working people or inner city youth but the established interest of the wealthy.
It is therefore not a national defense policy it is and international offense policy.
America has not successfully engaged the world since the fall of Emperor Hirohito. Korea is a failure, as was viet nam, as has been the end of the cold war and the war on terror.
We have zero record of defeating communism as China is becoming the economic superpower of the world. Europeans like Russian policy better than the US.
So should we rescind the war powers act to make war more difficult and costly?
Should we withdraw from the rest of the world and bring our troops home.
or should we make up reasons to fight all over the globe.
If we fight who benefits? Do we benefit? or do the wealthy elite that promote war benefit.
where should we be and why? we have been critical of going to the Middle east and now we are critical of leaving.
If we need to be overseas what is it for, what is defined as success, and what needs to happen for us to leave.
If we leave what will happen. Will Iran or China or Russia take over and what if they do? how does a stronger China impact Joe the Plumber?
if we have a Muslim ban what are we trying to accomplish. Is it to stop terrorism? is it to protect western culture? is it to promote Christianity? what is the objective?
