German foreign minister criticizes Trump's 'America first' foreign policy

I detest Trump almost as much as the harridan Hillary, but he has a point here:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/german-fo...s-trumps-america-first-foreign-102200855.html

Europe and Asia have thrived under the defense umbrella provided by the U.S. And U.S. bases in various countries around the world also are major contributors to local economies, much as they here.

But look at military spending by each country; the U.S. could greatly reduce its share by forcing these countries to fund their own defense. Let the UK, France and Germany worry about Russia, let Japan and South Korea worry about China. Leftists here point to the democratic socialist countries in Europe as paradise; let's see how much they can spend on social programs if they're forced to provide for their defense.

Middle East oil benefits Asia and Europe, so let them place bases in some of the various Muslim kingdoms. With fracking in the U.S. and oil from Canada and Mexica, North America is no longer energy-dependent on Middle East oil.

Isolationist? Perhaps. But as much as Trump is an idiot, he's onto something here. You can bet Hillary will continue the Bush/Obama adventures in the Middle East, but for what gain?

 

One of our key changes SHOULD be to force every country to protect themselves more, OR pay us a yearly fee for our protection, like an insurance policy. Because that's what it is. Many of these countries know they can easily ignore defending themselves, because they KNOW we will come running to protect them, because its our DUTY. &$*#((@ our duty. Pay up slackers or do it yourselves.

This was so obvious and I've called it many times over the years. As soon as we threaten to take away the golden goose, suddenly WE'RE the ones making the mistake. They criticize us for doing exactly what they need us to do. So, make it clear we're no longer going to do what they want, unless they contribute an amount commensurate with what they get.

 

He is onto something with America first foreign policy indeed. He is onto something with illegal immigration, shrinking and hurting middle class, outsourcing, corrupt and rigged political process, trade deals, disadvantageous to the US.

All other candidates are onto business as usual, he is onto real issues plaguing the US so you call him an idiot. Right, makes perfect sense.

 

Trump in the media spotlight.

But if he wins then all these words will become reality or will they? Trump is now politician playing the game. He could turn into Obama.

 

You acknowledge that "Trump is onto something here", but otherwise "Trump is the idiot".

View attachment 42712

 

Frankly, Obama has been no surprise. An incompetent America-loathing jackass from the beginning. Do you think that Trump is going to change who he has been all his life, an American loving Nationalist, and become some sort of liberal America-loathing turd blossom ?

 

Since when has the US done what Europe told them to do? That's just laughable. The State Department and the Pentagon give a rat's ass.
In for one would love to see US troops leave Europe, but they'll never do it. With close to one thousand permanent military bases around the globe, an isolationist strategy seems very unlikely in the next couple of decades.
Ramstein in Germany, for instance, is much too important for Washington's drone warfare and the NSA is currently building new headquarters in the city of Wiesbaden.
As far as defence is concerned. I find the notion that Europe has to be defended from Putin quite ludicrous. Yeah, I know, Russian tanks are probably going to reach the the Polish border next week.
Russia's economy has been in downfall for several years. The country has almost nothing to export except for weapons and natural recources. In order to keep the economy at least half-way stabile, Russia needs potent buyers. Despite the so-called Euro crisis, many EU countries are still wealthy enough to buy Russia's natural recourses.

 

The left wants us to spend less on the Military. Trump wants many countries to shoulder the burden... They should be on the same side on this..... But instead we get the childish name picking.

 

I believe trump play the politics game. More difficult to give grand speeches when sitting on the throne. But Obama does try.

 

There is nothing "isolationist" about it... Words have meaning.

 

Steinmeier clearly doesn't get it - those two things do fit together very well.

Part of putting America first is recognizing the new multi-polar power dynamics of the post-Cold War era and accepting the fact that the United States' role as the defender of the Free World ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It's the German FM who is lacking "the perception of reality". It's time for his country and the rest of our allies to step up and take more responsibility for their security.

 

Do you know how ignorant that sounds? It is almost like the Mafia boss telling his patrons to pay up for protection or else.. But then, Mafia bosses and Trump share a certain demeanor...

But if we are on the issue of paying: Why doesn't the US pay Germany for the use of their military bases there? Without that use of bases in Germany and in other countries, projection of US power around the world would be a lot more difficult. In fact, the Iraq war would have been not as easy without those bases.

Most Germans don't like US troops on their land. It still feels like an occupation. I am sure that most would say: Don't let the door hit you from behind if Trump would decide to pull out.

 

Currently, the U.S. has 48,000 active-duty personnel in Germany at a cost of $4 billion.

The amount does not include military personnel costs of $3.9 billion.

he report found that the U.S. has negotiated the return of more than 100 facilities to Germany since 2005, yet they haven’t been included in the residual value settlements between the two countries. Their current value is nearly $1.1 billion.

In South Korea, where there are 28,500 troops, the U.S. plans to move its forces from the Yongsan Garrison in Seoul to Camp Humphreys, about 40 miles south of the capital. The U.S. must provide most of the military family housing and cover the cost, estimated at $7 billion.

In return, South Korea gets prime real estate in downtown Seoul. During the transition, the U.S. will be responsible for maintaining both sites at a considerable cost. The project also calls for a $10 million museum at the newer base.

Aka we are getting bent over.....

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...tary-bases-overseas-despite-troop-reductions/

 

Frankly, if an "international" community can only be held through the sacrifices of the US, it may not be beneficial for that international community to exist. Because the eventual end game, would be the weakening and then overthrow of the US. To think that no other nation isn't thinking long-term in that perspective, or that they "owe" us, is simply naive.

No, these other nations brought their time until a potential discovery equalizes nuclear weaponry, once that happens the US loses its military edge, for all intents and purposes. NATO is only truly effective for everyone if in fact it's a true military alliance(IE: If everyone chips in). It won't be much, but let's say if every NATO country spent 10% of its GDP on defense. That'd allow us to equalize it a bit, and allow everyone to have a stake.

If these countries truly want to "put themselves" back on the map(as the justification was for the Libya exercise in futility) then they should put their money where their mouth is.

 

Why wouldn't they become reality?

Trump's position is consistent with the new multi-polar power dynamics of the post-Cold War era, Loki. Besides, our allies can't force us to defend their countries for them. If we decide to play a diminished role in international affairs there's nothing they can do to stop us.

 

I didn't mean usa vs Russia.

But the political game grinding trump down. Daily Lobbyists, think tanks, polls, back stabbing colleagues.

Will trump rise above it or just be another small politician in the political game. Only time tell.

 

When did Germany and South Korea ask for US troops on their soil? In Germany, they just took the liberty to stay there after WWII. If the US decides to pull out, I would welcome that, but then they won't be able to just use German air bases 24/7, as they did during the Iraq war (for free).

Plus, the local economic effect of US troops in foreign countries is vastly overstated. They usually don't venture off base (especially after 9/11) and get all their supplies by the PX.

It seems, though, that Trump, and many posters in this thread, are ignorant of these facts and in his arrogance he thinks that other countries are begging the US to protect them. That the US troops could be viewed as occupiers doesn't even enter his mind. And that's why he is woefully unprepared as president (among many other issues).

 

Trump has done nothing but dominate the political game since he started running for president. If he gets elected president that won't change.

 

I posted the costs and you claim its for free... /facepalm

Germany and Japan are free at any time to give us the boot.

 

Yes running. But when he wins. Game changes. More real. No one to blame then he stands alone on throne.

This is when see what trump made of. Judge him then how he handles changing regional and geopolitics.

 

For those who say "They (French, British, Germans) should pay us or pay more for their defence.
How well informed are you on that topic? I'm not claiming I have the full picture, but at least I have some info.
I live in Germany. Based on a contract from 1975, the German taxpayer pays hundreds of millions of Euros every year, e.g. for maintanace of US military bases, building new facilities, new infrastructure, maintanace of existing infrastructure, etc.
Example: a new US military hospital is being build in the city of Weilerbach. The US will pay 43 million Euros, the complete calculation is 170 million. German taxmoney for the project: 127 million Euros.
All costs combined in the last 10 years, US forces have paid 30 %, the rest (very unsuitable word here) comes from the German taxpayer.
Between 2003 and 2012 more than 1 billion Euros (all in the links provided).

Germany has to pay for damages caused by American troops (e.g. by traffic accidents, military exercises), but also if the US move troops within the country, new runways need to be build, or the US Air Force moves from Frankfurt to Ramstein and Spangdahlem, the German taxpayer has to open their wallet.
US personal, military as well as civilian personal, does not pay VAT here, millions of Euros every year.
Sometimes you have to do some research to find some numbers and one could argue that a military basis is like an enterprise providing jobs, so money comes in. However, the expenses are usually 5 times higher, all paid by the German taxpayer.

https://web.archive.org/web/2007021...rium.de/bundeshaushalt2005/pdf/2004/epl60.pdf
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...nd-zahlt-millionen-fuer-us-militaer-1.1820318
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/131/1713166.pdf#page=2
German language skills needed.
I know that probably nobody will read the links due to lack of language skills or pure laziness.
But that superficial "they should pay for it" is highly inaccurate at best, simply dumb at worst.

 

Your post and others in this thread shows the total delusion and disinformation of the Trump supporters. They honestly think that the US military budget is so high because other nations are asking the US to protect them? Protect them from what? And who has made negotiations for protection?

In reality, the US spends so much on "defense" because it projects power around the globe and is always involved in some war or the other. It uses NATO nations as stooges (for their bases, for example) to further our power politics. Do you rally think Germans want US troops on their land? Would the US want foreign troops on our land? If the answer is no, then why would we think others should pay for the "privilege" to host an occupying force?

It is the same delusion that led Bush to think that the Iraq war would pay for itself. A complete misunderstanding of the way other countries operate, and an utter inability to think beyond the own pocketbook.

 

Who is the german minster to criticize Trump? Didn't his country just get invaded by muslims and currently being taken over by them? Give it a few decades, and Germany as we know it wouldn't exists...

 

Good lord, man, our military WANTS those bases. We want bases wherever we can get them. If those countries will ALLOW us keep them there, fantastic. Do you know how much cheaper they are than aircraft carriers?

 

At least two voices of reason in this thread.

The other posters are the same who think that Mexico will be paying for that wall.