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 ...
“Does that about summarize it?”
Perfectly! The world’s “Layabout Countries” are going to have to get a job for the first time since the end of WWII.
Why are you here? I am sure there are United Nations and WTO and Internationalists/Soros-sponsored forums where you'd find your fellow travelers.
You must have missed this:
If you are a NeverTrump type person, you are working against our purposes on FR, so please opus out now and log off and let us carry on with our mission in peace.
Continue insulting us with 24/7 anti-Trump diatribes and insults, your opus will be assumed.
Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3424005/posts
Historically we here have been conservatives. There have been Buchanan supporters, Ron Paul supporters and a variety of political beliefs. But historically here, we were largely bound together by conservatism and the desire to focus on personal responsibility, integrity, and freedom.
I haven't missed anything.
But at no time did we not trade with the world; travel in the world; interact on a friendly basis with all who were friendly; respect all who showed us reciprocal respect. All of that is quite different from surrendering any part of the independence, won on the battlefield & recognized in the Treaty of Paris 1783.
There is an obvious moral issue raised by those who postulate our meddling in the internal affairs of other nations; an even greater moral issue in whether or when American politicians should advocate risking the lives & limbs of young Americans in conflicts where the immediate interests of America are not involved.
It is sheer demagoguery to label people who understand the moral issues involved as "isolationists."
William Flax
As usual, well said!
I don't disagree with that. I would however say that pulling out of NATO because other nations aren't paying enough money is not really a moral issue. That's just my opinion.
“Buchanan was brutalized for such a position in the face of the opposition of Europe and Israel.”
Yes. But Buchanan was correct then and Trump is correct now.
The neocons are straight up globalists at the end of the day. Their structures and legacies must be erased as thoroughly as they erased the good work of the Reagan Revolution.
Thank you. I have been fighting the people who want to surrender American sovereignty since High School—long, long ago. (Their arguments have not gotten better.)
O.K. Your opinion. How do you stand on NATO bombing Serbia to force them to accept the secession of Kosovo in 1999? Is that the sort of "problem" that NATO was founded to address?
More politicians who are afraid the gravy train is about to quit making stops at their locations.
Ok I’ll bite. What’re we supposed to be doing Trump says we shouldn’t?
Not in the way you see it.
O.K. Your opinion. How do you stand on NATO bombing Serbia to force them to accept the secession of Kosovo in 1999? Is that the sort of "problem" that NATO was founded to address?
NATO was founded for the protection of member states. Does it need to get involved if the Serbs are committing genocide in Kosovo? Certainly it doesn't need to because none of it's states were being threatened. But then, that's that morality question again isn't it?
I don't believe it is a matter of morality to leave NATO because some members don't pay enough. Serbia was a matter of morality. Isolationism says "it's not our problem." What does morality say? Who knows?
Cruzlims always make it up as they go. If it’s Trump it can’t be kosher, even if he said sky is blue.
Next time, we will nominate an actual conservative to defeat the liberals.
- - - - -
However, you need to make sure your “actual conservative” is an ACTUAL AMERICAN!
The available public record proves that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is now, since he renounced his Canadian citizenship, a citizen of NO COUNTRY in the world!
http://northamericanlawcenter.org/ted-cruz-not-legal-u-s-citizen-at-all/#.VyJyoORbSuo
and just who do you think pulled the fright in WWII ummmmmm who armed the “ALLIES” ummmmm long past time for the “ALLIES” to put skin in the defence game
If we had entered the war earlier instead of after Pearl Harbor had been bombed I wonder how it would have been different? Maybe no D-Day? No bombing of Pearl Harbor? Less Jew killed in Nuremberg? Less killed in the Pacific? Who knows? I’m personally glad we entered the war and worked with the Allies and with Russia to defeat the Axis powers.
Yes, I’m thinking they shouldn’t be lecturing us about “reality.”
Simple minds...think about it for awhile and get back to us.
“We as a country need to look after our own interests and quit propping up everyone else to our detriment.”
This is exactly what Trump wants to do.
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.