No. of Recommendations: 3
Why do we need our planes to use their airbases, if we aren't going to invade Iran's airspace and conduct military attacks within their country? This isn't some big secret. You can't engage in even limited airstrikes without invading their airspace.Nice try here. Really nice try. But you said
Really? Other than metaphor, what is the legal justification for an invasion of a sovereign state without any sanction by international body?So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here that you weren't trying to conflate ground invasion. Hmmm, okay.
Tell me. When Barack Obama was droning everyone he could find, was that a part of the "Rules based international order?" How about US airstrikes in Yemen or other places?
That's not very international rules based-y.
How is it in Germany's real interests for us to impose punitive tariffs on their goods? How is it in their interests to disrupt longstanding trade patterns that entire industries within their economy have been based on for decades? How is it in their real interests for us to signal that we won't support them if they're attacked? How is it in their interests for us to tell them that domestic policy matters that are normally the purview of the electorate of Germany instead must be aligned to what our government decides they should be? Etc.Hmmm. According to the above, the Germans and others have been sterling partners for years, always treating US goods fairly. Is that it? Only since the Bad Orange Man has come along have things changed.
Let's ask Boeing about that.
https://www.ft.com/content/985ae1d6-89eb-46d6-b06c...Yeah, the Europeans
never act in their own interest. They always follow the rules-based international order. One subsidy to Airbus at a time!
LOL.
On this one:
How is it in their real interests for us to signal that we won't support them if they're attacked?If they won't fight for themselves, why should we? You really don't get the longstanding joke that the defense posture in London, Paris, Brussels and Berlin is to
defend the continent down to the last American. You can add "Pole" to that now, I suppose.
How is it in their interests for us to tell them that domestic policy matters that are normally the purview of the electorate of Germany instead must be aligned to what our government decides they should be? Etc.Because if they don't support basic human rights like, I don't know, free speech - then whose side are they on?
But I don't understand how you can make it in good faith, because the whole point of Trump's changes to the global economic system was to change them so that they were better for us and worse for them.I was reading a great quote the other day about how when someone removes your privilege it looks like discrimination. The Europeans have done all the things I've mentioned to their benefit and our detriment for decades. Redressing the balance is just that, redressing a balance.
By definition, he's acting against their interests in favor of our own. And so it's not at all surprising that other countries will respond by no longer cooperating with the U.S. on things we want.</iI>
Your argument vis a vis Iran is basically the Europeans cutting off their noses to spite their face. Which is the same kind of thing they'll do when they all run over in the most effeminate, butthurt way possible to sign trade deals with China. In 10 years they'll be looking at being unable to pay for their welfare states because they shipped all their jobs to China, wondering how things went so wrong.
