Posted on 03/27/2016 7:38:46 AM PDT by bryan999
Donald Trump wants US allies to ante up if they want to continue under the “cloak of American protection,” according to his first detailed comments on his foreign-policy platform.
“We’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries,” the Republican front-runner was quoted as saying.
Trump said he would boycott oil from Saudi Arabia and other allies unless they provide troops or funds to fight ISIS.
“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection . . . I don’t think it would be around,” he told The New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I never said Trump lacked planning skills for his business. This is a thread about foreign policy. I said Trump lacks an understanding of the consequences of his proposed policy. If one creates a power vacuum in the geopolitical arena (step one), others not friendly to us are ready to swoop in (step two).
Naive is one way to put it. Not my way, but one way. :’)
So we end up with Japan with nukes, South Korea with nukes, Saudi Arabia with nukes, Germany with nukes, Kuwait with nukes, Poland with nukes, Turkey with nukes, Italy with nukes, Egypt with nukes, etc and the world will be a much safer place.
What if our allies don’t want to pay? What will Donald do then?
What if Putin says he will protect them for free. What will Donald do then?
That’s why I’m saying he only thinks one step ahead on foreign policy. Making threats is only good if you’re willing to back it up. Trump appears to be more bluff than bite.
Who said we’d pull out?
What if Putin says he will protect them for free. What will Donald do then?
What if, what if, what if? That must mean that you're content with the status quo. No changes for BigBobber. You're type is what's wrong with this country. Can't make changes because "what if" it isn't good.
I'm sick of the career politicians foisting the same con game on us over and over. I want someone in office who has the balls to fight against our enemies and stand up for America again instead of bending over for the terrorists.
No one here is happy with the status quo. It would be hard for anyone to do worse than Obama and Clinton/Kerry.
But before we start making changes to decades old alliances, it’s necessary to think about the consequences. Do we really want to go it alone with a Europe dominated by Russia and an Asia dominated by China?
Trump’s Code Pink foreign policy is not impressive. We don’t need four more years of amateur hour.
Thank you for the clarification, but my point still stands. Europe isn’t paying its fair share for our help. Trump wants that put on the negotiation table, probably a comprehensive overhaul that works in our favor.
Cruz portrays that as ‘a retreat’.
European countries haven’t been paying their fair share “dues” in Nato for ages now...it was a point of contention (again) during the Ukraine issue as nations weren’t using their share to improve ‘their own military’ capability, instead basically relying on the US to intercede should that be needed. Which is why Poland and other nations got their pants in a knot when Russia and Ukraine butt heads.... So it’s been an ongoing issue that surfaces every time there’s unrest in European countries.
However, that put the US in a position to put it’s own base in Poland, which is operational the last I knew now. Which was purely a political and foreign policy move.
It’s a lot more than just revenue flow Arthur.....and it’s been “On the table” for years.
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.