Trump / FBI / Russians

It's called control the supply and distribution of valuable goods - food, water, energy and information on a global scale. If we don't then Russia or China or Iran or India will, to our detriment. Historically, that's how wars start. We won the last couple big ones, why give up the ground we've gained for a campaign slogan?

 

Right here on this forum we have the makings of a council of elders that would rival Planet of the Apes

 

I'm no libwad, but I think when countries around the world work together for the benefit of their economy, they have more to lose when they start blowing each other up.

I'm 100% for taking care of USA first, but you need to maintain strong economic, political, military ties to guarantee peace and prosperity. As the leader and founding partner in those ties(deals) we can dictate them to our benefit. If we pull out of deals and isolate ourselves the rest of the world will build up around us, rather than along with us.

You can be a world player and build up the homeland at the same time. Does not have to be all or nothing.

 

But isn't that how most empires end up failing in the end, when they try to do too much by taking over the rest of the world?

 

Hmm I would argue most empires fall due to over expansion. In one hand, yes, the US should isolate itself from every foreign conflict unless it poses a direct threat to the homeland; however, I would not apply that logic to trade imo

 

Welcome

 

o kyle. you said "due to expansion" and he said "try to do to much by takin over the world"...semantics it seems.

doesn't trade and expansion go hand in hand? Even the Great Khan was aware of this phenomenon...

BTW, I vote for CyC for director of health and human services.

 

It's like backgammon. Expand. Consolidate. Advance. If you advance too far before you consolidate, you get chopped. Look at USSR for a recent example, but yes history is littered with them.

The US of A needs to maintain its advances that we shed so much blood for during WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Not roll over to the Chinese and give them the keys to the kingdom. They are building a new Panama Canal in Nicaragua right now.

What happened when we left Iraq? ISIS took over.

 

Sorry man. I may vote republican, but I will never cast a vote for DJT.

 

Not semantics, trying to police the world costs us billions with very little financial return, more a humanitarian return is I guess how you could spin it.

Expanding your trade partners/deals is not the same as expanding how much military presence you have around the world. One is far more lucrative financially without the after effects/costs of refugees and maintaining your military might in a region.

 

If we would have never entered Iraq, ISIS would have never existed. If we would stayed out of Israel, I doubt there would be nearly as much animosity toward the west coming out of the middle east. Just saying, policing the rest of the world rarely works out well for us.

 

Kinda the same thing I'm getting at. Spreading our self too thin, trying to be everywhere for everything, whatever you want to call it.

 

Fair points, hold our ground sure but I'm not a fan of complete world domination. Seems like a bad plan that will eventually back fire.

 

So you are saying spreading yourself to thin tradewise is a bad thing?

 

oh, well that is more specific. Then, I don't think any country has expanded without a central focus on the military...Khan knew this too.

 

The military industrial complex is the hidden backbone of our economy. I don't have links or data to prove the economic value of our giant military, including our space presence, but just look at satellite technology, the internet, etc. That's due to R & D by the armed forces. I could go on all day. We need an overwhelmingly superior military to protect The American Way of Life IMO. Otherwise we will all be speaking Mexican.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted something. I thought DP was saying too much trade expansion was bad thing.

 

True dat (or russianese)

 

It's an opinion Lance....