Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The inherent role of every government and leader must be to look out for the best interests of its own nation and constituents (If not, who will assume this mantle?).
A nation's 'best interest' can only be determined by each government and its leaders. That may or may not include forming alliances with other nations to serve the mutual interests of multiple nations, none being subordinate to the other. The 'jury is still out' on the success of ECU member nations in forming a lasting alliance.
Over the years, America's foreign policy seems to have shifted toward a 'politically correct' notion that every national action should first be subjected to a 'world popularity' test. Behind that is a 360-degree round of 'second-guessing' by the media and social networks, where pundits attempt to retroactively inject 20-20 hindsight views into any debate or decision. In this effort, "would of, should of, could of" are given equal weight with the 'nations best interests' and every action taken by an elected leader.
It's difficult to imagine how true leadership, common sense and national interests can survive in such an environment - where 'popular opinion polls,' political CYA dithering and polarized second-guessing so prominently prevail.
The best way to Make America Great Again is to stop shipping our jobs overseas, red the label of everything you own. Embolding big business that puts there greed before the commonwealth of America.
Trump will do neither.
This will help all the other countries who are using slave labor in sweatshops to stop following the American role model of filling their pockets first.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,597,628 times
Reputation: 5696
Should the US put it's own interests first? Depends on what you call "interest", particularly short-term vs long term. That alone is enough to mire the discussion. Still, I'll ignore that for now and get to my central point.
US interests should come first to the extent that it doesn't cause severe detriment to other nations, especially if any gain made or loss prevented by the US would be trivial compared to the gains made or losses prevented to other nations. That's my Cliff's Notes version of it, at least, but I'm sure it's enough to get my point across.
Here's a simple point: I thought what we were doing was discussing pursuing a foreign policy that is in the self interest of the United States. I fail to see how doing everything that Israel wants is the best foreign policy for the United States. There are multiple actors/players in the Middle East. A foreign policy that is truly in America's self interest would try and steer between all the actors, rather than simply siding with one. We have now told Israel that, essentially, it can do no wrong.
* My replies in bold
Thanks for nothing. I possess an extensive fund of knowledge, so I don't have to "go do research" for every post. If you do, you're looking in the wrong places.
Also, your powers of reasoning are quite faulty. Just because the algore globaloney warming disaster is NOT happening does not preclude making the argument that, were it true, it would be A GOOD THING. Because it would.
Which puts a double lie to algore and friends and the loot-America-first scheme. However, it's gotten him fat and rich beyond belief, that's all algore cares about.
A very good example of what I'm talking about happened just a few days ago: The U.N. voted overwhelmingly to condemn Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, even after the US threatened to pull funding from the world body and foreign aide to countries that did not support us. 128 nations voted against us. Only 9 voted for us.
So there you have a total lack of leadership on our part, and the result that even friends abandoned us. And what did we do? Our country laid down on the floor kicking and screaming about if you don't give me what I want, then I won't love you anymore. Childish and not America's finest hour.
US interests should come first to the extent that it doesn't cause severe detriment to other nations, especially if any gain made or loss prevented by the US would be trivial compared to the gains made or losses prevented to other nations. That's my Cliff's Notes version of it, at least, but I'm sure it's enough to get my point across.
Is offending the "religious beliefs" a significant loss to a nation?
So there you have a total lack of leadership on our part, and the result that even friends abandoned us. And what did we do? Our country laid down on the floor kicking and screaming about if you don't give me what I want, then I won't love you anymore. Childish and not America's finest hour.
What you call "leadership" is actually appeasement. The "rest of the world" was not happy about American incursions on the concept of monarchy with its independence. Were we to take a "world poll" then?
The "world" likes whatever it takes to keep largesse flowing to the diplomatic community and leaders. Very little U.S. aid reaches the people.
What you call "leadership" is actually appeasement. The "rest of the world" was not happy about American incursions on the concept of monarchy with its independence. Were we to take a "world poll" then?
The "world" likes whatever it takes to keep largesse flowing to the diplomatic community and leaders. Very little U.S. aid reaches the people.
Leadership requires intelligence. What you suggest only requires brawn. One of these days, we won't be the one with all the brawn.
What you call "leadership" is actually appeasement. The "rest of the world" was not happy about American incursions on the concept of monarchy with its independence. Were we to take a "world poll" then?
The "world" likes whatever it takes to keep largesse flowing to the diplomatic community and leaders. Very little U.S. aid reaches the people.
And how does strong arming and isolationism help the American people? Explain how his Jerusalem decision will improve the lives of most Americans.
The world leadership: to be an example or to be a chief
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The "rest of the world" was not happy about American incursions on the concept of monarchy with its independence.
The best time of a national state has gone. I've heard that from many politicians and political scientists. But the national state helps to keep order in the country. Many states aren't ready for globalism.
Meanwhile monarchy ... is deprecated! Monarchy is an attribute of the world of tradition on religion. Free voting is fit for the world of science and industry.
The USA is the especial country. It has a high level of development and goes to the future fast. Many countries don't want to move so quick. This is uncomfortable for them. They say: "Open world, globalization, internet are good. But we want to follow our laws in our country".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world leadership: to be an example or to be a chief
