Withdrawing troops from Germany?

[_ajax18]

The US learned a hard lessen from WW2 that isolationism does not work and makes the US less safe.

And look how that lesson served us in Vietnam and later in Iraq. As long as we're not allowed to fight to win, we're wasting taxpayer money and the blood of our soldiers to be cannon fodder for insurgent rebels.

[_Gunnar]

But Trump was the fool and was trying to get rid of anything Obama did, good or bad.

So true! One of Trump's stupidest arguments yet: Trump says Obama isn't a great president because 'much of what he's done we've undone'.

Donald Trump said Barack Obama could not be considered a great president because he had undone many of the polices his predecessor had introduced during his time in office.

"President Obama, they say he was a great president – but you can't be a president when much of what he's done we've undone," Mr Trump said.

His words came during a campaign visit to Old Forge, Pennsylvania, two days after Mr Obama gave a speech during the Democratic National Convention painting Mr Trump as a dire threat to the future of America.

"I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care," Mr Obama said.

He continued, suggesting Mr Trump is incapable of personal or ideological growth.

"But he never did. For close to four years now, he's shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves," Mr Obama said. "Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't."
...
As for Mr Trump's claim that his administration has undone much of what Mr Obama did during his time in office, he has attempted to dismantle two of his predecessor's most notable programmes – the Affordable Care Act. known as Obamacare, and the DACA programme – but he has as yet been unsuccessful in his endeavours.
...
However, Mr Trump has overturned dozens of environmental protections instituted by his predecessor. On the world stage he has withdrawn from both the Iran nuclear deal, which aimed to delay the Islamic Republic's alleged efforts to build a nuclear weapon, and from the Paris climate deal.

The former British ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, was withdrawn from DC in 2019 after some of his cables home were leaked. Along with descriptions of chaos at the White House, the papers revealed claims that Mr Trump had withdrawn from the multinational Iran deal in order to spite Mr Obama's legacy.

It very highly questionable that the undoing of most of Obama's accomplishments was a good thing, or that their undoing was motivated by anything more noble than Trump's spite for and jealousy of Obama.

[_Themis]

The US learned a hard lessen from WW2 that isolationism does not work and makes the US less safe.

And look how that lesson served us in Vietnam and later in Iraq. As long as we're not allowed to fight to win, we're wasting taxpayer money and the blood of our soldiers to be cannon fodder for insurgent rebels.

LOL Funny that much of the rest of the world knew enough that these two conflicts were a mistake and passed on being involved. What did they know that the US didn't? What's sad is it doesn't even occur to you that being very involved in the world doesn't have to involve invading other countries.

[_Some Schmo]

Trump says Obama isn't a great president because 'much of what he's done we've undone'.

This is another great example of a situation where you can't tell if Trump is a moron because he actually thinks this or thinks his audience is made of morons and will buy it.

Not that it matters much. Either way, Trump and his supporters are morons.

I saw an interview with Carly Fiorina where she said she was voting for Biden, and if Democrats wanted to win over more Republicans, they had to stop calling Trump supporters morons. I disagree. Trump supporters are morons, and have not changed their minds after everything we've seen the asshole do to the country. How is that not moronic?

If you can't be persuaded by facts, you're a moron. What's the danger in calling Trump fans morons? They will do the moronic thing no matter what anyone says. We have proof of that on this very forum. It's obvious.

I'm not going to pretend Trump's base isn't composed of idiots. Ignoring reality is why we have the problems we do. If they don't like being called morons, maybe they should try avoiding moronic behavior.

[_moksha]

I suspect the US does not need to spend the money it does on military to hold back hegemonic powers like Russia and China. It should be doing things like the TPP which would create the world's largest economic free trade zone. This was to counteract China's growing economic power and influence it was exerting around the world. But Trump was the fool and was trying to get rid of anything Obama did, good or bad.

China has won or will win the economic struggle for dominance. Trump has squandered whatever goodwill was engendered by American dominance during the last century. Perhaps Biden can get some of it back with our allies, but it will never be quite the same.

[_Temp. Admin.]

Are you suggesting or implying that the USA would be better of than it is now, if it never entered WWII, and, as a consequence, the AXIS powers of German, Italy and Japan won the war and took over and ruled virtually the entire rest of the world with the exception of the USA?

Yes to the former, no to the latter. Chances are the Soviet Union would've eventually defeated Germany on its own. Not only that, but occupying so much real estate heavily taxes the occupying power--as any American knows--so the Axis powers would've eventually collapsed under their own weight, like the former Soviet Union did, even if they did win the war everywhere else. . . all without the U.S.A. losing a single soldier.

How long do you think we could have continued to maintain our Independence and democracy had that happened?

Indefinitely. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, said it best: "I would never invade the United States. . . there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

And what is the likelihood that Japan would have refrained from eventually attacking the Pacific Fleet in San Diego, had it remained there instead of being ordered to Pearl Harbor?

100%. Their ships didn't have the range to make it from their nearest base and back.

I do admit, though, that it is not entirely implausible that Roosevelt, recognizing the near inevitability that Japan, Germany, or both would eventually have turned their sights on conquering us, after defeating their more immediate neighbors in Europe and Asia, might have felt it prudent to provoke Japan into attacking us to get us into the war early enough for us to make a difference, and that he felt that moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor might have been an effective way to accomplish that.

Provoke a foreign nation into attacking his own country? That's high treason of the most despicable kind. If that could've been proven in his lifetime, he would've spent the rest of his life in jail, and rightfully so.

No it was not working fine.

The isolationists kept the U.S.A. out of the war for a full two years. If that doesn't count as "working fine," what does?

The US was no longer in the 1800's when it could try and ignore what was going on in the rest of the world. The 1900's brought that to an end, and the 2000's we are interconnected so much and in so many ways that are impossible to separate. What happens in other parts of the world impact the rest of the world for both good or bad.

Of course. But that doesn't justify American taxpayers footing the bill for protecting everyone else's country so those taxpayers can have a break.

Putting your head in the sand will not make it go away. The US has to be very involved or it will find some very negative consequences for not doing so.

You yourself said it best: "What's sad is it doesn't even occur to you that being very involved in the world doesn't have to involve invading other countries." It also doesn't involve American taxpayers footing the bill for protecting everyone else's country so the taxpayers in those countries don't have to.

[_MeDotOrg]

Isolationism worked just fine until Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet away from San Diego and into Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism always works until it doesn't. When you say "Isolationism worked just fine", that implies that there is no benefit in international engagement.

[_Temp. Admin.]

Isolationism worked just fine until Roosevelt ordered the Pacific fleet away from San Diego and into Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism always works until it doesn't. When you say "Isolationism worked just fine", that implies that there is no benefit in international engagement.

There was no benefit in the international engagement that resulted in thousands of people being killed in Pearl Harbor.

[_Themis]

The isolationists kept the U.S.A. out of the war for a full two years. If that doesn't count as "working fine," what does?

It doesn't count as fine because the US could have helped bring the war to a faster close. It was also taking a chance that if it's allies did not win the US would be surrounded by authoritarian regimes that may have eventually taken over the US.

Of course. But that doesn't justify American taxpayers footing the bill for protecting everyone else's country so those taxpayers can have a break.

The US didn't foot the bill. The UK did more then any ally in defending the free world. They spend their wealth protecting your ancestors, just as other allies did. The US eventually came on board and the western world help crate a better world with a lot more stability and order that you have benefited greatly from.

You yourself said it best: "What's sad is it doesn't even occur to you that being very involved in the world doesn't have to involve invading other countries." It also doesn't involve American taxpayers footing the bill for protecting everyone else's country so the taxpayers in those countries don't have to.

Military action should be last resort and we shouldn't be using it to try and force democracy on everyone. That's not how democracy has been built up in most areas of the world.

[_Temp. Admin.]

The isolationists kept the U.S.A. out of the war for a full two years. If that doesn't count as "working fine," what does?

It doesn't count as fine because the US could have helped bring the war to a faster close.

Like the U.S. did in Vietnam?

It was also taking a chance that if it's allies did not win the US would be surrounded by authoritarian regimes that may have eventually taken over the US.

Please go back and read what I wrote, 'cause apparently you skipped it.

Of course. But that doesn't justify American taxpayers footing the bill for protecting everyone else's country so those taxpayers can have a break.

The US didn't foot the bill. The UK did more then any ally in defending the free world. They spend their wealth protecting your ancestors, just as other allies did. The US eventually came on board and the western world help crate a better world with a lot more stability and order that you have benefited greatly from.

I'm not talking about World War II. I'm talking about nowadays.

Military action should be last resort and we shouldn't be using it to try and force democracy on everyone. That's not how democracy has been built up in most areas of the world.

You just contradicted your first sentence, above.