Time for a thread because it's obvious that many people simply are blowing right past the arguments actually being made. No reasonable person objects to the POTUS calling for other countries to meet their financial obligations. Several previous administrations have done that.
What many of us do find objectionable is the attacks on the alliance itself, suggestions that America does not benefit from it, and the willingness to defer to opportunistic enemies seeking to further divide and destabilize the global order.
The US and our allies in Europe have enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity since WWII because of the current alliances. That peace is the direct result of a peace through strength approach, where America is the key enforcer.
Millions have died to create and maintain that order. The simplified version is:
You don't mess with us, our friends, and the current global order, or America will take you out. Period.
That only works if our allies and our enemies believe it.
You don't mess with us, our friends, and the current global order, or America will take you out. Period.
That only works if our allies and our enemies believe it.
When you start to signal that you're not going to enforce that promise, our enemies will always see that as an opening & try to take advantage. Our allies can also abandon us as a result. That is how you end up with miscalculations and conflicts that could otherwise be avoided.
When it comes to Putin, that is exactly what started happening in the previous administration. Put saw Obama's reluctance to get America involved in foreign affairs or enforce our alliances, and took that as a signal that he can safely start attacking.
You think there is any chance that Putin invades Ukraine or takes Crimea if he thought America would uphold the commitment we made with the Budapest Mamorandum?
You think Putin would have launched cyber attacks if he knew there would be serious consequences? Propped up Assad?
You think Putin would have launched cyber attacks if he knew there would be serious consequences? Propped up Assad?
All of these things, whether the left wants to admit it or not, are a direct result of Obama's willingness to abandon our role as the enforcer abroad.
Now we have another President sending the same exact signals to Putin, only even more publicly and blatantly.
Now we have another President sending the same exact signals to Putin, only even more publicly and blatantly.
No one is suggesting you go to war with Russia, but the actual path to war is to make Putin think there are no consequences for his attacks on us or our allies until it escalates to a point where action becomes inevitable.
And you might dismiss something like Trump ignorantly affirming that Americans shouldn't have to risk lives to defend a small European ally as mere words, but to Putin (if he believes Trumo) that is a potential signal that he can invade more countries without repercussions.
If you care about the world that so many generations of Americans fought so hard to create and want to preserve it for future generations, you can't sit quietly as an ignorant politician puts it at risk. Doesn't matter what tribe you belong to.
Anyways, this thread explains it much better than I did so hope you read it and consider. Especially people who are otherwise supportive of Trump because those are the people who can have the most influence by speaking out on this.
