No. of Recommendations: 13
Yeah, putting America First has no future. Citizens surely don't want that.
Mike, you're better than this. And, yes, that is a compliment. Because I said you are better than that post. Your first line is a strawman. It doesn't get much better from there. I know you can do better because you have done better.
I'm happy to engage, but please spare me the fallacies and putting words in my mouth.
And no, buying "friends" is not a benefit as a general policy although it is sometimes necessary.
This is worth addressing. I'm assuming you're talking about foreign aid. There can be a LOT to unpack, depending on what you're referring to. Sometimes it's just humanitarian aid. You're not "buying friends", you're helping people not to starve (or to get clean water, etc).
Sometimes it is military aid, like Ukraine. There are a myriad of benefits, both direct and indirect. And some more obscure benefits like not tolerating the aggressive seizure of territory that belongs to someone else. One of the direct benefits is that this conflict is weakening Russia severely. It's straining their economy, they're running out of munitions and materiel, it's weakening their military. If we can keep Ukraine supplied for another 18 months or so, Russia will be a hot mess (and of no military consequence whatsoever on the international stage...except nukes, of course). Keeping an adversary weak is a good thing, and doing it without American casualties is even better. I'll trade a few billion dollars worth of mothballed tanks (i.e. tanks we hadn't scrapped, but were decommissioned in favor of newer models) for no American body bags. That's a bargain if we are keeping an adversary occupied, and weakening them.
It's very situational. Why we help the Philippines vs Ukraine vs some African nations, are all different with different objectives. But they are all in our national interests in some way. So we are putting "America First", even if it isn't always obvious at first glance.
