If most non-Americans want America to stop meddling with world affairs ...

[Height]

It looks like I'll have to vote for Hillary if Trump or Cruz is the nominee. I'm not really excited about anyone this election year. I'm politically between Hillary and Bernie and nobody is really filling that hole. It would of been nice to have someone who was as genuine as Bernie, but as realistic as Clinton. Maybe with a bit more idealism than Clinton. She is kind of boring.

[Skroe]

Granted we cant say fuck China because they hold all our debt.

MAN. SERIOUSLY?

You can't even get this right.



Seriously, fuck off with that debt garbage. It's not right. It's never been right. It will never be right.

See China there? 8.2%. Belgium owns more of our debt.

We need to stop alot of the humanitarian bullshit we do, especially in the gigantic hole of corruption that is Africa..

Are you serious?

Let me get this right. First of all, the US's anti-AIDS and anti Malaria humanitarian mission in Africa has saved many millions of lives.

Secondly, you want to be liked and respected... but you don't want to do the one thing that will actually earn it most which is to help people? Want to know what happened in Africa while the US was distracted with the Iraq War? China moved in, and their aid displaced our aid in some regions.

And guess what countries now listen to them, more than they listen to us?

Foreign Aid is the way into people's hearts. You want the US to be globally influential? You will surge foreign aid.

The Obama admin wants the world to like us. Too much of Obama's policy has been about appeasement and where he sees kindnesses others see and take advantage of weakness ie Iran.

Obama's been too much carrot and not enough stick, no argument there. But carrots are enough for the vast majority of situations.

And Iran is small ball. Iran doesn't matter.

And by the way.. i Just want to draw a picture for you. The US... with no friends, no allies, cut out from international rule making, isolated from our historical relationships, resented around the world, while our enemies fill the void and make friends of our ex-friends one by one.

There's a word for that.

Surrounded.


The best American foreign policy is one that is America-first while wearing the costume of internationalism. Trumps foreign policy is so incredibly stupid because it makes it very easy for other country's to oppose our agenda. It will simply not be in other country's interest to cooperate with us, the end. The brilliance of American foreign policy since 1940 is that we've enabled 150 other countries to basically sign onto our global vision and become minority stakeholders while the US is CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Board.

[Luxxor]

One person I wont argue with on this board is Skroe. Thanks for the education man, you are like Endus but actually know WTF you are talking about.

[Height]

I don't get people who are anti-foreign aid either. It's minimal money for saving lives and strengthening other economies which in turn strengthens the world and us. It's common sense in many instances.

[Pangean]

Since Obama painted us as a bunch of appeasement pussies on the world stage. Since he racked the middle class.

Utter nonsense that only a Trump supporter could utter. The middle class has been under attack since the 80's. And unless you think that Obama has a time machine and the ability to force changes after going back in time your blaming him for the state of the middle class is silly political tribalism that bears no resemblance to the what actually has occurred.

Obama painting "us" as "appeasement pussies" is more of the same nonsense from folks who want us to keep alive disputes that no longer serve our best interests. It's tribal chest thumping from folks that have caused the tremendous wasted spending of people and monies in the the middle east.

[Luxxor]

I don't get people who are anti-foreign aid either. It's minimal money for saving lives and strengthening other economies which in turn strengthens the world and us. It's common sense in many instances.

Im not seeing how aiding Africa helps us. Also for the amount of money spent I feel we have had a minimal impact.

[Height]

Im not seeing how aiding Africa helps us. Also for the amount of money spent I feel we have had a minimal impact.

If a ton of people aren't dying and they aren't spending money on those people not dying their economies have an easier time. If their economies are stronger and they like us we can work with them. Tadaa trade, money, allies.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Absolute malarky. The US does so much good around the world and never gets any credit. The US also fucks up a lot of shit by getting involved when they shouldn't. Lets pull it back, worry about ourselves alot more and make this country great. Want our help? Earn it.

We're arguing different things. You're arguing that not getting credited for beneficial activities and citing the negative consequences from poorly executed intervention means the US should focus on itself. I don't disagree that the US does need to focus more on our domestic issues.
But people are also advocating a complete isolation, US-only trade/manufacturing/etc. That's what I'm arguing against. The US benefits enormously from international trade, research agreements, and so on. There is a scale from returning jobs back home to aggressively maintaining a "domestic-only" business policy, but the extreme end of that has been put forth as an option. And its a shit option. Business would suffer. Research would suffer. Production would suffer.

The US cutting itself off completely and becoming self-sufficient might be possible, but it would be a longer, more painful transition than people seem to realize, and the end-game would most likely be a lower general standard of living than exists currently.

Focusing more on domestic issues and problems is good. Blindly cutting all ties and the US removing itself from the global economy and community given how interconnected the current world would be a stupid move on America's part.

[Pangean]

Im not seeing how aiding Africa helps us. Also for the amount of money spent I feel we have had a minimal impact.

You just said Skroe taught you something and now you show you learned nothing from his post.

[Luxxor]

You just said Skroe taught you something and now you show you learned nothing from his post.

Because I dont agree that the amount of money we've spent has done anything besides get eaten in the corrupted cesspool of humanity that is Africa.

[Skroe]

One person I wont argue with on this board is Skroe. Thanks for the education man, you are like Endus but actually know WTF you are talking about.

I appreciate that, but seriously dude, if you're gonna take a stand on something, piece of advice, double check you're right.


Foreign policy at one level, is not that complicated. It's about people. And the way to people's hearts is treating them with respect, and helping them if they need help.

Let's talk Trump and Europe and NATO one second. Trump's entire NATO thing is insulting, but hot entirely wrong. Europe does spend less than they need to on defense (and a huge reason is industrial redundancy... i.e. they make 6 different warships instead of 1 ship for the entire continent). But the way to get them to raise it is not to openly and publically threaten them. It's to do it discretely and behind closed doors, over time.

Thirteen years ago, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld divided the Europe that helped in the Iraq War between "New Europe" which helped and "Old Europe" which didn't. At the time, i was all about that and the "axis of weasel nonsense".

In retrospect, how fucking stupid. How utterly unacceptable. If you want people's assistance or compliance, the last thing you do is insult and demean them. Donald Rumsfeld's comments, among other insults and signs of disrespect, only hardened "old Europe's opposition" over what should have been a lot less controversial an issue. We made ourselves the bad guys, needlessly.

"Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick" is a timeless phrase because of how smart it is. Talking a big game, making grand pronouncements... how often does that shit work? Really? So rarely, especially in Foreign Policy. It's the meat that matters. If the US wants something done, it just does it. It doesn't need to make a show of it. Making a show is for lesser powers.

If Trump wants to raise NATO defense spending, unleash an unprecedented lobbying campaign against European politicians. Not just leaders but people in parliaments and other assemblies. Unleash a public-policy campaign to get the public on your side. It is harder, but it will be sustainable support.

Because let's consider what the alternative is:
(A) Europe says no, and the US loses 28 allies, all of them the richest most technologically advanced countries in the world
(B) European leaders say yes under duress, European voters react in outrage, change their governments next election, and the governments say no.

Think long term. It doesn't matter if NATO spends more in the next 5 years so long as they are in the next 10-15. The situation we're in now is because NATO's conversaiton about this very thing - a post cold war debate - has been kicked to the future by events in the world. It was happening after Operation Allied Force in 1999, but 9/11, then the Afghan and Iraq Wars, delayed the day of reckoning, until 2015/2016. Why then? Because NATO's Afghan mission (ISAF) ended two years ago and NATO is looking for a purpose for the first time in 15 years. Thus the long simmering debate is back.

Every time a country gives the US access, shares technology or says 'no' to Russia or China or Iran, US foreign policy succeeds. By making ourselves the obvious center of the universe, and announce we are the center of the universe, we do nothing but give our disparate enemies common cause. But adopting a lower profile, but managing affairs as we always have, we keep our enemies divided.


Do not hand our enemies the most important propaganda tool they can gain, which is an Arrogant America. It is a fact of the world this country is unique in that it is the only one that can do basically everything it wants. There is no need to broadcast that.

[Pangean]

Because I dont agree that the amount of money we've spent has done anything besides get eaten in the corrupted cesspool of humanity that is Africa.

And you are wrong. As was pointed out anti-AIDS and anti-Malaria programs have saved many lives. As well work on agricultural productivity and economic development are increasing the ability of the countries supported to wean themselves of off aid and become future markets for us as their economy's expand.

[Deleted]

If most non-Americans want America to stop meddling with world affairs shouldn't they be Pro-Trump because his platform is for isolationism?

I believe he has been quoted as saying that "America can no longer police the world". Is that what everyone on this board wants?

I don't think "Going after anyone associated with Terrorists" is "Stepping down from world police".

[Skroe]

Im not seeing how aiding Africa helps us. Also for the amount of money spent I feel we have had a minimal impact.

The US federal budget is $3.5 trillion a year. Including state and local spending, US government at all levels accounts for about $6.7 trillion.

US Foreign Aid to Africa totals about $20 of the $35 billion we spend in aid every year, or about $7 billion. Of that $35 billion, $8.4 billion (24%) is Global Health programs.

SO not only is foreign aid essentially a rounding error of wider US spending, but it also goes to tremendously useful things, like a quarter of it going to treating illness and infectious disease.

Source: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/spends-billion-foreign/


I think a quick way to winning hearts and minds is curing the sick and alleviating suffering. There is also the whole moral responsibility to do so thing.

[Luxxor]

And you are wrong. As was pointed out anti-AIDS and anti-Malaria programs have saved many lives. As well work on agricultural productivity and economic development are increasing the ability of the countries supported to wean themselves of off aid and become future markets for us as their economy's expand.

And will that happen? You think China gives a fuck about Africa besides exploiting its natural resources?

[Skroe]

And you are wrong. As was pointed out anti-AIDS and anti-Malaria programs have saved many lives. As well work on agricultural productivity and economic development are increasing the ability of the countries supported to wean themselves of off aid and become future markets for us as their economy's expand.

Just going to share this.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ven-from-foes/

he George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication brought together five living presidents who have been at odds about much of the 43 rd president's foreign policy legacy, particularly the Iraq war. But they all agreed on, and offered effusive praise for, Bush's work on Africa.

From the historic peace agreement between Sudan and South Sudan in 2005, to Bush's work on HIV/AIDS and malaria, all the presidents, regardless of party, thanked No. 43 for his involvement in African policies and issues.

Jimmy Carter - who now runs the Carter Center, a non-profit organization whose mission is to fight for human rights, conflict resolution and global health in the world's most impoverished countries - laid out Bush's accomplishments, including increasing aid to the continent by more than 640% by the time he left office.

"Mr. President, let me say that I'm filled with admiration for you and deep gratitude for you about the great contributions you've made to the most needy people on Earth," said Carter.

At more than $5 billion a year in humanitarian aid to Africa, President Bush has given more assistance to the continent than any other president. His administration's aid was largely targeted to fight the major global health issues facing the continent, HIV/AIDS and malaria.

In 2003 Bush founded the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which guaranteed $15 million to be spent over the course of five years on prevention, treatment and research on HIV/AIDS. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. was also a leader in contributing to the Global Fund on AIDS.

Though there was controversy over some of the qualifications for PEPFAR funds -up to 20% was to be spent on abstinence-focused prevention programs, and the funds could not be used for needle-sharing programs - most HIV/AIDS activists credit the program for being instrumental in turning the tide on AIDS.

Before PEPFAR, an estimated 100,000 people were on anti-retroviral drugs in sub-Saharan Africa. By the time Bush left office in 2008 that number had increased to about 2 million.

In 2005 Bush started a $1.2 billion initiative to fight malaria. He defended the request for funding in 2007, saying, "There's no reason for little babies to be dying of mosquito bites around the world."

At Thursday's ceremony, President Clinton said in his travels throughout Africa he had "personally seen the faces of some of the millions of people who are alive today" because of Bush's policies.

Even some of Bush's most ardent critics have admitted that his foreign policy legacy on Africa continues to have a lasting effect.

U2 front-man and activist Bono, who criticized Bush on the Iraq War, nonetheless expressed his admiration for the Republican president on an appearance on the Daily Show last year, telling Stewart that Bush did an "amazing" job in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

"I know that's hard for you to accept," Bono said to a surprised crowd and host, "but George kind of knocked it out of the park. I can tell you, and I'm actually here to tell you that America now has 5 million people being kept alive by these drugs. That's something that everyone should know."

Since leaving office the former president and his wife, Laura, have continued to stay active in global health issues in Africa, now taking on cancer. The George W. Bush Institute has launched the Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon initiative to try and bring together both public and private investment to fight cervical and breast cancer in Africa and Latin America. The couple launched the program on a visit to Zambia and Bostwana in July of last year.

Millions of people are alive, and millions more will live, because of this.

- - - Updated - - -

And will that happen? You think China gives a fuck about Africa besides exploiting its natural resources?

Yes they do. Because China has global aspirations.

Today it's foreign aid. Tomorrow it's foreign military bases and strategic partnerships.

How do we know this? This is _exactly_ what the US did during and after World War II. They are running our playbook.

China is significantly more globally dynamic than the lumbering USSR ever was.

[Pangean]

And will that happen? You think China gives a fuck about Africa besides exploiting its natural resources?

Already has. There are two reasons we help those countries. One because it's simply the right thing to do. Two because it creates markets for us to sell to and import from. And the Chinese state they do it for the exact same reasons.

[Auxora]

I think many of the non-Americans who dislike America meddling in world affairs are a little naive to the outcome of that. Libya, Syria, the growth of ISIS, recent ISIS attacks in the EU, Boko Haram's growth in Africa, Yemen, North Korea, piracy in Somalia...just to name a few cases where in the past the US might have (and probably would have for some of these in past years) intervened and didn't or only had a very minor presence.

Just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring world problems thinking they'll magically go away on their own doesn't work. If non-Americans don't appreciate that, maybe the US should take a more hands-off approach and see what the world thinks in 10-20 years about how that turns out. The US has already been taking a far more hands-off approach than in the past because the rest of the world hasn't been stepping up, and looking at the list above there are already at least half a dozen very hot spots. And if non-Americans think leaving those to fester and get worse on their own just by not intervening will not affect them in their country, I think they'll be disappointed. I don't know how anyone in the EU could even suggest that's a sensible strategy after Paris and Brussels, not to mention the refugee crisis.

[Deleted]

I think many of the non-Americans who dislike America meddling in world affairs are a little naive to the outcome of that. Libya, Syria, the growth of ISIS, recent ISIS attacks in the EU, Boko Haram's growth in Africa, Yemen, North Korea, piracy in Somalia...just to name a few cases where in the past the US might have (and probably would have for some of these in past years) intervened and didn't or only had a very minor presence.

Just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring world problems thinking they'll magically go away on their own doesn't work. If non-Americans don't appreciate that, maybe the US should take a more hands-off approach and see what the world thinks in 10-20 years about how that turns out. The US has already been taking a far more hands-off approach than in the past because the rest of the world hasn't been stepping up, and looking at the list above there are already at least half a dozen very hot spots. And if non-Americans think leaving those to fester and get worse on their own just by not intervening will not affect them in their country, I think they'll be disappointed. I don't know how anyone in the EU could even suggest that's a sensible strategy after Paris and Brussels, not to mention the refugee crisis.

You mean like how the US ended up training the Talibans, inciting their anger from Trade embargos in the Gulf War and ending up having 9/11 hit them in the face?

is that how you do a "Hands-on" approach?

Or how about forcing the Mexicans to pay a wall. have an entire country pay for the sins of few.

You might be big and influental, but don't act like the US is free of Sin.

[Vyxn]

Two times last century we tried to stay out of world affair and we ended up with WW1 and WW2 that we was dragged into them anyways and lost hundred of thousands of American lives. never again
would lives been saved if we got involved from the start dam right there would have
Hitler started WW2 because we allowed him to. he was constantly breaking the treaty of Versailles and we turned a blind eye to it
we could have stopped WW2 before it even began if we would have gotten involved and enforced the treaty