PDA

View Full Version : It's Time For America To Cut Loose Our Useless So-Called "Allies"




Swordsmyth
06-16-2018, 07:52 PM
Let’s get one thing straight: the United States has no real allies. There are countries we dominate and control, more properly termed client states or even satellites. (True, given Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s lock-stock-and-barrel ownership of the American political class, it seems rather that we are their clients, not the other way around...) Conversely, on an almost one-to-one correspondence, countries that are not satellites are our enemies, either currently (Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria) or prospectively (China).
But do we have any actual allies – that is, countries that provide mutual security for the United States, and whose contributions actually make us Americans safer and more secure in our own country?
Try to name one.
Let’s start with the granddaddy of our alliances, NATO. How does having a mutual defense pact with, say, virulently anti-Russian Poland (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/06/02/poland-unwisely-plays-american-card-against-eu-and-russia.html) and the Baltic States make America more secure? How does, say, tiny corrupt Montenegro (https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/mr-trump-america-doesnt-need-tiny-corrupt-montenegro-in-nato/), contribute to US security? Are these countries going to defend America in any conceivable way? Even if they wanted to, how could they possibly?
For that matter, against what ‘threat’ would they defend us? Is Latvia going to help build Trump’s Wall on the Mexican border?
‘Our NATO allies help out in Afghanistan,’ we are told. NATO-Schmato – it’s Americans who do almost all the fighting and dying. It’s our treasure being wasted there. Maybe without the fig leaf of an alliance mission, we might long since have reevaluated what we still are doing there after 17 years (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/24/trump-new-strategy-afghanistan-neither-new-nor-strategy-nor-trump.html).
But comes the answer, ‘Russia!’ Except that Russia isn’t a threat to the United States. Despite their hype even the most antagonistic Russophobic countries in NATO themselves don’t really believe they’re about to be invaded. And even if they were, that still doesn’t make Russia a threat to us – or wouldn’t except for the very existence of NATO and a forward American presence on Russia’s borders and in the Black and Baltic seas littorals. How does gratuitously risking conflict with the one country on the planet (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/25/forget-kim-its-time-for-trump-putin-summit-now.html) whose strategic arsenal can annihilate us make Americans safer?
As Professor Richard Sakwa has observed (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/19/frontline-ukraine-crisis-in-borderlands-richard-sakwa-review-account), ‘NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence.’
Let’s look at other supposedly valuable alliances.
Why do we need South Korea and Japan? ‘China!’ But except for a nuclear stockpile much smaller than our intercontinental deterrent China doesn’t present a military threat to us. ‘Yes, but Beijing poses a danger to South Korea and Japan.’ Maybe, maybe not. But even if that is so why is it our problem?
Why do we need Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and bunch of other Middle Eastern countries? We aren’t dependent on energy from the region as we arguably were when Jimmy Carter proclaimed a vital national interest there four decades ago. ‘Well then, Iran!’ But the Iranians can’t do anything to us. ‘Yes, but they hate Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.’ Again, what’s that got to do with us?
In each case the argument of a US interest is a tautology.
The US ‘needs’ allies for the sole purpose of defense against purported threats not to us but to those very same allies. It’s a self-licking ice cream cone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licking_ice_cream_cone).
It would be bad enough if these faux alliance relationships were only detrimental in terms of getting embroiled in quarrels in which we have no interest, wasting money and manpower in areas of the world where our security is not at stake. But there’s also a direct economic cost right here at home.
Based on the claimed need for “allies” US trade policy since World War II could almost have been designed to undermine the economic interests of American workers and American producers. Starting with Germany and Japan, our defeated enemies, we offered them virtually tariff-free, nonreciprocal access to our huge domestic market to assist with their economies’ recovery from wartime destruction; in return, we would take their sovereignty: control of their foreign and security policies, as well as their military and intelligence establishments, plus permanent bases on their territory.
This arrangement became the standard with other countries in non-communist Europe, as well as some in the Far East, notably South Korea. As much or more than puffed-up claims of military threats (and companies that benefit from inflated military spending) lopsided trade is the glue that keeps the satellites in place. In effect, our “allies” cede geostrategic control of their own countries and are rewarded at the expense of domestic American economic interests. Already of questionable value in its heyday, this pattern not only survived the end of Cold War 1 but continued to grow, contributing to the rise of Cold War 2.
Put into that context, this is where Trump’s tariffs dovetail with his other blasphemies, like expecting the deadbeats to pony up for their own defense. He challenges them to reduce tariffs and barriers to zero (https://www.politico.eu/article/trumps-surprise-g7-pitch-we-should-at-least-consider-no-tariffs-steel-aluminum-trade/) on a reciprocal bilateral basis – knowing full well they won’t do so because it would spoil their cozy arrangement at the expense of American workers. He threatens the sanctity of the North Atlantic Treaty’s vaunted Article 5 obligation of mutual defense on whether countries meet a two percent of GDP level of military spending (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/nato-allies-military-spending-trump.html) – knowing that few of them will since they don’t in fact face any external military threat and would rather keep the money.
In his own unvarnished, zigzaggy way, Trump is doing what he said he would: putting America and Americans first. As he has said, that does not mean hostility towards other countries, whose leaders have aduty to put their countries and peoples first as well (https://www.npr.org/2017/09/19/552059223/president-trump-put-your-countries-first). It means both stopping our allies’ sandbagging us, while restoring to them their unsought-for – and for many of them, undesirable – sovereignty and independence.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-16/jatras-its-time-america-cut-loose-our-useless-so-called-allies

thoughtomator
06-16-2018, 07:56 PM
Japan is an ally.

Beyond that I am sure of none.

Swordsmyth
06-16-2018, 07:58 PM
Japan is an ally.

Beyond that I am sure of none.

What do they do for us?
What do we need them for?

Make sure your answer doesn't end up being that we need their help to protect them.

thoughtomator
06-16-2018, 11:26 PM
What do they do for us?
Make sure your answer doesn't end up being that we need their help to protect them.



A picture is worth a thousand words here.

https://i.imgur.com/ewmsSTq.jpg

Japan has our back when we need it in our foreign affairs, political and economic. That's what an ally does.

Swordsmyth
06-16-2018, 11:31 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words here.

https://i.imgur.com/ewmsSTq.jpg

Japan has our back when we need it in our foreign affairs, political and economic. That's what an ally does.

It is possible, if they agree to a fair trade relationship and to fund their own defense.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:05 AM
What do they do for us?
What do we need them for?

Make sure your answer doesn't end up being that we need their help to protect them.

I'm sure the terms of surrender after WW2 has an enormous impact on that. I think there's a clause that prevents Japan from militarizing.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 12:08 AM
I'm sure the terms of surrender after WW2 has an enormous impact on that. I think there's a clause that prevents Japan from militarizing.

That was a horrible mistake and we need to work with them to rectify it, defending Japan may actually be our responsibility until we do.:cool:

timosman
06-17-2018, 12:10 AM
I'm sure the terms of surrender after WW2 has an enormous impact on that. I think there's a clause that prevents Japan from militarizing.

Not really - Japan Moves to Allow Military Combat for First Time in 70 Years - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478624-Japan-Moves-to-Allow-Military-Combat-for-First-Time-in-70-Years

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:11 AM
That was a horrible mistake and we need to work with them to rectify it, defending Japan may actually be our responsibility until we do.:cool:

Good luck, no way in hell North Korea denuclearizes if Japan is allowed to build a militarize.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 12:13 AM
Good luck, no way in hell North Korea denuclearizes if Japan is allowed to build a militarize.

I'm pretty sure our forces in Japan are a bigger threat than anything the Japs would keep on their own if we left.
Plus we can remove our forces in S. Korea and other bases in the region as well.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 12:14 AM
Not really - Japan Moves to Allow Military Combat for First Time in 70 Years - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478624-Japan-Moves-to-Allow-Military-Combat-for-First-Time-in-70-Years

Baby steps, they won't pay for a real military until we negotiate our withdrawal.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:22 AM
Not really - Japan Moves to Allow Military Combat for First Time in 70 Years - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478624-Japan-Moves-to-Allow-Military-Combat-for-First-Time-in-70-Years

Yeah, but those are "limited" what that means who knows. Japan still largely uses its military for defensive purposes. But, that could change.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:24 AM
I'm pretty sure our forces in Japan are a bigger threat than anything the Japs would keep on their own if we left.
Plus we can remove our forces in S. Korea and other bases in the region as well.

Agreed, however, the history between Japan and Korea is different than American forces. Japan enslaved Koreans prior to and during WW2.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 12:28 AM
Agreed, however, the history between Japan and Korea is different than American forces. Japan enslaved Koreans prior to and during WW2.

We killed untold numbers of Koreans and bombed them into the stone age, I don't think they see much difference between our forces and the Japanese.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:32 AM
We killed untold numbers of Koreans and bombed them into the stone age, I don't think they see much difference between our forces and the Japanese.

The killing went both ways. The Japanese humiliated Koreans.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-refuses-to-forgive-japan-s-wartime-atrocities-8923279.html

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 12:37 AM
The killing went both ways. The Japanese humiliated Koreans.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-refuses-to-forgive-japan-s-wartime-atrocities-8923279.html

With Japan's aging and shrinking population and lack of nukes I don't think they can be seen as much of a threat on their own and the US has been the primary enemy for 60 years, I don't think that Japan would be too much of a problem in our deal with the Norks as long as we pulled out of the region.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:41 AM
With Japan's aging and shrinking population and lack of nukes I don't think they can be seen as much of a threat on their own and the US has been the primary enemy for 60 years, I don't think that Japan would be too much of a problem in our deal with the Norks as long as we pulled out of the region.

Trump took the first step by standing down joint exercises. A step in the right direction, baby steps in the right direction. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Pauls' Revere
06-17-2018, 12:42 AM
With Japan's aging and shrinking population and lack of nukes I don't think they can be seen as much of a threat on their own and the US has been the primary enemy for 60 years, I don't think that Japan would be too much of a problem in our deal with the Norks as long as we pulled out of the region.

Trump took the first step by standing down joint exercises. A step in the right direction, baby steps in the right direction. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

TheCount
06-17-2018, 09:34 AM
Japan still largely uses its military for defensive purposes.
If only we could follow their example.

ILUVRP
06-17-2018, 09:52 AM
my feelings are that there is only 3 countries that america can depend on in a real emergency - canada - australia - britain .

none in the middle east including israel , they all hate us and just use us .

oyarde
06-17-2018, 10:00 AM
I trust none of them but would trade with them . Certainly no need to fund anything for any of them .

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 01:35 PM
my feelings are that there is only 3 countries that america can depend on in a real emergency - canada - australia - britain .



LOL

enhanced_deficit
06-17-2018, 04:08 PM
It's Time For America To Cut Loose Our Useless So-Called "Allies"
Let’s get one thing straight: the United States has no real allies. There are countries we dominate and control, more properly termed client states or even satellites. (True, given Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s lock-stock-and-barrel ownership of the American political class, it seems rather that we are their clients, not the other way around...)

..
Why do we need Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and bunch of other Middle Eastern countries? We aren’t dependent on energy from the region as we arguably were when Jimmy Carter proclaimed a vital national interest there four decades ago. ‘Well then, Iran!’ But the Iranians can’t do anything to us. ‘Yes, but they hate Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.’ Again, what’s that got to do with us?


...

Relations with ultra conservatives in Saudi Arabia (who also oppose gay weddings, abortion, pre-marital romances etc) could be energy interests based but is this writer implying that our ties to Israel (though mostly liberal/commie culture based) are also based on oil interests and US won't have been a staunch supporter of Israel's birth and maintenance had massive oil reserves not been discovered in that region?

That frankly would be insult to a large part of GOP base/Evangelical Christians. Many Biblical leaders like CUFI's John Hagee and millions of GOP basers deserve an apology if it is being implied that such Christian-Zionists channel their material interests & wordly greed through biblical messaging when it comes to shaping US foreign policy regarding chosen vs non-chosen races.

http://lwnewsroom.s3.amazonaws.com/newsroom/files/2015/07/Jews-are-chosen-people-Americans.jpg (https://blog.lifeway.com/newsroom/2015/07/14/american-evangelicals-stand-behind-israel/)

Christians' Israel Support Is Biblically Based
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/why-christians-support-israel/
Mar 6, 2018




Israel is not only our closest taxpayers funded ally but also the only non-racist democracy in mideast that did not cause blowbacks like 9/11 and resulting Iraq war at the cost of millions of American Lives/Limbs and Trillions in debt for future grandchildren.

It is no wonder that current historic leader is putting Israel First on foreign policy fronts at the cost of alienating other non-chosen allies.


Respected in the world again: US resolution to support Israel at UN Security Council gets only 1 vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522848-Respected-in-the-world-again-US-resolution-at-UN-Security-Council-gets-only-1-vote&)

https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/8a832e0/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2290x1322+0+0/resize/2290x1322%21/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2F40% 2Fad%2F2c2459a6779f6ec0392d76c0c628%2F638c48243562 2ae21f99a4ff8b4a5337.jpg


US blocks UN call for independent probe of Gaza protests
16h ago

https://video.newsserve.net/700/v/20170409/1704091538-Ivanka-May-Have-Convinced-Trump-To-Bomb-Syria.jpg



Trump is a Friend of Zion
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522256-Trump-is-a-Friend-of-Zion&)

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.5711003.1515519576%21/image/1018316866.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullscreen_1104xAuto/1018316866.jpg

Trump's Biggest Donor Pushed for Jerusalem Embassy Move
https://lobelog.com/trumps-biggest-donor-pushed-for-jerusalem-embassy-move/
Dec 4, 2017 - His biggest campaign contributor, billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, is showing growing impatience with Trump's slowness in ...

TheTexan
06-17-2018, 04:12 PM
Calling a country an ally of US is just for their benefit so they can save face about being subjugated to our will

timosman
06-17-2018, 04:14 PM
Israel is not only our closest taxpayers funded ally but also the only non-racist democracy in mideast that did not cause blowbacks like 9/11 and resulting Iraq war at the cost of millions of American Lives/Limbs and Trillions in debt for future grandchildren.

:rolleyes:

timosman
06-17-2018, 04:15 PM
Calling a country an ally of US is just for their benefit so they can save face about being subjugated to our will

Sure, but how do you extract money from the system? You give it to your friends who give kickbacks to you.

enhanced_deficit
06-17-2018, 04:36 PM
:rolleyes:

This data is 5 years old, later data had war injured/disabled count over a million.

Iraq/Afghanistan wars disabled 624,000 US troops , Divorces up 42%, Foreclosures up 217% (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424803-Iraq-Afghanistan-wars-disabled-624-000-US-troops-Divorces-up-42-Foreclosures-up-217&)

Military divorce rate increased as families struggle to heal - Kerr ... (http://www.khcgalvestonfamilylaw.com/blog/2013/07/military-divorce-rate-increased-as-families-struggle-to-heal.shtml)
Jul 9, 2013 -Approximately 38 percent of military marriages fail within six months of a veteran returning from a deployment.

Foreclosures in Military Towns Surge at Four Times U.S. Rate ... (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=awj2TMDLnwsU)
Foreclosure filings in 10 towns and cities within 10 miles of military facilities, including Norfolk, Virginia, home of the Navy's largest base, rose ...

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day (http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/02/05/22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-commit-suicide-every-day/)
forbes
Feb 5, 2013 - Veterans now commit suicide at the rate of 22 a day, or almost one an hour. Almost once an hour – every 65 minutes to be precise – a military veteran commits suicide, says a new investigation by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

timosman
06-17-2018, 04:41 PM
This data is 5 years old, later data had war injured/disabled count over a million.

Iraq/Afghanistan wars disabled 624,000 US troops , Divorces up 42%, Foreclosures up 217% (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424803-Iraq-Afghanistan-wars-disabled-624-000-US-troops-Divorces-up-42-Foreclosures-up-217&)

Military divorce rate increased as families struggle to heal - Kerr ... (http://www.khcgalvestonfamilylaw.com/blog/2013/07/military-divorce-rate-increased-as-families-struggle-to-heal.shtml)
Jul 9, 2013 -Approximately 38 percent of military marriages fail within six months of a veteran returning from a deployment.

Foreclosures in Military Towns Surge at Four Times U.S. Rate ... (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=awj2TMDLnwsU)
Foreclosure filings in 10 towns and cities within 10 miles of military facilities, including Norfolk, Virginia, home of the Navy's largest base, rose ...

Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day (http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/02/05/22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-commit-suicide-every-day/)
forbes
Feb 5, 2013 - Veterans now commit suicide at the rate of 22 a day, or almost one an hour. Almost once an hour – every 65 minutes to be precise – a military veteran commits suicide, says a new investigation by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


My point was Israel had nothing to do with it.:cool:

enhanced_deficit
06-17-2018, 04:49 PM
My point was Israel had nothing to do with it.:cool:

There are multiple views on this, including these:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg

9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHely2_KkC4&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dRtvvzX47VwYbu6X-cQuvMM)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHely2_KkC4&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dRtvvzX47VwYbu 6X-cQuvMM

enhanced_deficit
06-17-2018, 04:59 PM
Japan is an ally.

Beyond that I am sure of none.

Did Japan send troops and stood with us in our hour of need during Iraqi Freedom invasion?

UK/Australia were the only allies who sent troops to stand with America on frontlines during very costly Iraqi freedom war. That may be why many see them as our closest allies.

Ender
06-17-2018, 05:13 PM
Of course, there's Mexico who has actually helped in times of disater but most here don't wanna talk positive about them dirty brown people.


In late August 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the southeastern portion of the contiguous United States, causing severe damage and destruction in several U.S. states and killing more than a thousand people.

On August 30, 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox sent his condolences to U.S. President George W. Bush regarding the hurricane's effects: "In the name of the people and of the government of Mexico, I assure you of my deepest and most sincere condolences for the devastating effects caused by Hurricane Katrina". He also mentioned his instructions to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; that the United States would be provided with any kind of help that was needed.[6]

The Mexican Red Cross sent four rescue experts from the state of Jalisco to assist in rescue efforts in New Orleans. The government of the Mexican Federal District also pledged to help with relief efforts.

On September 4, the Mexican Navy offered ships, buses and helicopters to assist in rescue missions. The offer was accepted and the Mexican ship Papaloapan departed from Tampico, with two Mi-17 helicopters, eight all-terrain vehicles, seven amphibious vehicles, two tankers, radio communication equipment, medical personnel and 250 tons of food.[7]

On September 5, the Secretariat of Social Development pledged 200 tons of food, to be delivered in five airplanes by the Mexican Air Force.

The Secretariat of National Defense, on September 6, sent Mexican soldiers with expertise in rescue missions to the area affected by Katrina. Also sent the same day were 35 vehicles and 162.7 tons of food, carried by trucks traveling through the U.S. state of Texas.[8]

The members of congress of the Federal District pledged a day of salary each on September 7, to be sent to those affected by Katrina. The National Commission of Water sent bottled water and canned food upon request. Naval ship Papaloapan arrived the same day, with 389 soldiers and other personnel from the Mexican Navy. Units of the Mexican Army, a total of 184 people, arrived by land with 35 military vehicles.[9]

On September 8, the Mexican Army was received with honors at Kelly Air Force Base by the mayor of San Antonio, Texas.[10] Local news channels noted the fact that the Mexican Army operated on U.S. soil after 159 years of absence, with the last time being the Mexican-American War.

On September 9, Mexican marines, U.S. Navy sailors, and U.S. Marines, helped clean up hurricane debris outside of an elementary school in D'Iberville, Mississippi.[11]

On September 12, Mexican marines and Dutch navy sailors distributed aid supplies to residents in D'Iberville, Mississippi.[12][13]

End of mission
On September 25, the 184 person Mexican army contingent completed its 20-day-long mission to provide relief to hurricane victims and relief workers from Katrina and Rita. The Mexican Army's field kitchen, a tractor-trailer turned into a kitchen, served 170,000 meals during their deployment to the former Kelly Air Force Base. They also assisted in the distribution and management of more than 184,000 tons of supplies.

On September 26, 2005 in a small ceremony conducted by the Mexican consulate, the Mexican troops ceremonially ended their mission. They broke down their camp, packed their equipment, folded their flag and drove back to Mexico

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 05:25 PM
Of course, there's Mexico who has actually helped in times of disater but most here don't wanna talk positive about them dirty brown people.

Mexico is another leech, they take far more from us than they have ever given back.

They are however better than some of our whiter allies.

Ender
06-17-2018, 05:29 PM
Mexico is another leech, they take far more from us than they have ever given back.

They are however better than some of our whiter allies.

And the US sucks from every nation on the planet. They either give us all their resources or we sanction them & take their money. If that doesn't work then we bomb the shit out of 'em.

thoughtomator
06-17-2018, 05:33 PM
Did Japan send troops and stood with us in our hour of need during Iraqi Freedom invasion?

UK/Australia were the only allies who sent troops to stand with America on frontlines during very costly Iraqi freedom war. That may be why many see them as our closest allies.

And yet both are deeply involved in an attempted coup against the government of the United States.

Where they were once allies, they are presently not.

timosman
06-17-2018, 05:55 PM
And yet both are deeply involved in an attempted coup against the government of the United States.

Where they were once allies, they are presently not.

This wouldn't be a problem had Hillary won.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 06:07 PM
And the US elite sucks from every nation on the planet. They either give us all their them resources or we they sanction them & take their money. If that doesn't work then we they bomb the $#@! out of 'em.

Fixed it, if things worked the way you had it America would be prosperous instead of having a hollowed out economy, most of our "allies" benefit more than we do from the status quo, they are socialist/communist and would have collapsed long ago without leeching of of America.