There is no U.S. vital interest at risk in these islands to justify an eternal war guarantee or treaty commitment to fight Beijing over rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.
Complete isolationist non-sense.
Like it or not, Pax Americana is what keeps the world functioning.
If you want your future dominated by the Chinese telling what can and cannot be said, advertised, or sold, follow Pat's advise.
The entire world is smaller, in practical terms, than the entire 13 colonies were in 1776.
Either we shape the international environment, or we become dominated by those who do.
Like it or not, Pax Americana is what keeps the world functioning.
If you want your future dominated by the Chinese telling what can and cannot be said, advertised, or sold, follow Pat’s advise.
The entire world is smaller, in practical terms, than the entire 13 colonies were in 1776.
Either we shape the international environment, or we become dominated by those who do.
We tried that and the globalists/progressive corportists ended up selling the American people out to China and Mexico anyway.
Wisdom!
If they get out from under America's wing, they will swiftly find themselves under China's...and there are consequences to that -- for us all.
Whereas if we make certain correct moves, we will see China diminished and perhaps it will experience a positive change in its political system.
Pax Americana (and the Soviet/Chinese response to it) is also the reason a lot of tinpot dictators have been able to rise to and keep power around the world, the reason Europe has been able to spend it's GDP on social safety net programs rather than defense, and the motivation for every other military power on Earth to keep expanding and advancing it's ability to kill it's fellow man.
Some foreign allies make sense today given the threats we face and the national interests we hold. Some... maybe less so than they did thirty years ago. Treaties only work so long as all participating parties agree to the terms.
I personally don't think beating a retreat from the world stage, ala Buchannon, is good, but fighting to keep finding a military presence in a location that doesn't want us isn't helpful either. Maybe Dueterte just needs a chance to really consider the implications of his decisions, or maybe we just let it go and his regime crumbles without the economic support of America. We should be at least willing to consider the question.
> Either we shape the international environment, or we become dominated by those who do. <
That’s a fair point. This argument is used to keep the U.S. in NATO, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc., etc.
Rome went bankrupt following that strategy, as did the British Empire. So I would argue for a more balanced approach. We need to be involved overseas. But not everywhere all the time.
The United States should be isolationist by nature and interventionist in rare, exceptional cases. That’s the only legitimate political stature for a country that is supposed to be built on the idea of limited government. A government that pisses away thousands of lives and trillions of dollars on military campaigns in Islamic sh!t-holes halfway around the world while facilitating an invasion of Third World peasants here at home has no moral claim on any loyalty from its citizens anymore.
And is going to occur in the SCS again and again as they fortify and weaponize reefs, such as Fiery Cross, Subi, and Mischief, etc.