Posted on 04/28/2016 11:09:55 AM PDT by Innovative
Donald Trump's first major foreign policy address alarmed American allies, who view the Republican front runner's repeated invocation of an "America first" agenda as a threat to retreat from the world.
While most governments were careful not to comment publicly on a speech by a U.S. presidential candidate, Germany's foreign minister veered from that protocol to express concern at Trump's wording.
"I can only hope that the election campaign in the USA does not lack the perception of reality," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.
"The world's security architecture has changed and it is no longer based on two pillars alone. It cannot be conducted unilaterally," he said of foreign policy in a post-Cold War world. "No American president can get round this change in the international security architecture.... 'America first' is actually no answer to that."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
As Foreign Minister from a country with Frau Merkel as its Chancellor, I hardly think Herr Steinmeier is qualified to comment on reality or any subject relating to national or international policy.
Ah too bad so sad
The Germans have surrendered more than once
“Putting America Last” hasn’t really worked out all that well.
Who said anything about dropping out of NATO?
What Trump did say was:
NO, 8 years of Obamas lead from behind has failed... 50 years of other nations living under the protection of the US military is over. There are now only 2 standing armies in Europe that are remotely worth a damn, because Nato has made it such that those nations get protected by US.
So what have those nations done? Cut defense spending and created social welfare states with the money... well Time to step up.. the free ride is over.
"The French managed to surrender three times in the same war. That is not an easy thing to do"
So what if our NATO allies don’t keep up their end of the monetary bargain? Then what?
And America first was not the terminology Trump used
The reason it is being used by the media is to somehow invoke the images of the 1930s when the America First committee was active. It is a derogatory propagandistic term.
Expect more of the same from the media and the dems. At least Trump fights back
Good. US Allies: shape up or ship out.
I'm glad he isn't planning on pulling out of NATO, even if the original mission is outdated etc. That means his threats have nothing behind them...
NATO's original mission is outdated and should be rethought.
Very well spoken. I don’t want to live in a world where a once vibrant American culture is diluted further. I hope reason returns here..and in the EU, as you pointed out.
Then at that point they have broken the terms of the contract and, yes, we should consider pulling out. IMHO, if we even hint at that they'll start paying very quickly.
If you decide that you only want to pay 10% of your mortgage what do you think will happen?
I don't know you, but I'm guessing your a female. I mean you got that logic going :)
No, it’s not isolationism. It’s more the Powell Doctrine or more accurately, the Weinberger Doctrine..
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]
Weinberger:
The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
Precisely.
You're all over the place on this. I think it is perfectly rational to expect a partner to live up the their end of a bargain. What am I missing here? Where is the isolationism there?
What exactly is your definition of isolationism?
You know Sue... Isolationism is more than a military strategy.
So you think pulling out of NATO for whatever reason is not isolationist at some level? Really? Are you serious?
Something only means what THEY say it means in their perverted world. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.