Having more allies may decrease a country's power

[longknife]

How interesting. Does this mean that President Trump’s anti-globalism is making the USA stronger?Reversing the subservient course of the previous administration?

A country in the game must maintain equilibrium--it cannot extend friendship if it does not retain the resources to mediate conflicts between allies. More allies thus increases the country's responsibility to help mediate conflicts that may arise, which could overstretch and decrease the country's own overall welfare.

More @ Having more allies may decrease a country's power

 

[Moonglow]

Well, I can actually say that the madness of King George has spread to the rightist apologist crowd.

 

[Care4all]

then tell trump not to add Russia as an ally....no need for more, right?

 

[william the wie]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

 

[IsaacNewton]

How interesting. Does this mean that President Trump’s anti-globalism is making the USA stronger?Reversing the subservient course of the previous administration?

A country in the game must maintain equilibrium--it cannot extend friendship if it does not retain the resources to mediate conflicts between allies. More allies thus increases the country's responsibility to help mediate conflicts that may arise, which could overstretch and decrease the country's own overall welfare.

More @ Having more allies may decrease a country's power

How obvious, the Soviet Union when discussing fighting NATO among themselves thought, "oh look how weak all those countries are because they are allied against us, thankfully they're not smart enough to end that alliance and face us each on their own because THEN we'd be in real trouble. I mean imagine if Greece were to leave NATO and attack us? It would be all over comrade."

Cons, you eagerness to buy a sled and was up the treads so you can slide down the slippery slope of defending Batshit Trump is most illuminating. For decades people have wondered if a Hitler or Stalin could arise here, if enough people would support one.

You've removed any doubt.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You mean like Obama supporting ISIS in Syria? Or, the fight of Obama's allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, against our ally in Egypt? Or like our allies, the UN controlled France, Germany and Britain?
Ally is a fickle word these days...

 

[Moonglow]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

 

[candycorn]

You mean like Obama supporting ISIS in Syria? Or, the fight of Obama's allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, against our ally in Egypt? Or like our allies, the UN controlled France, Germany and Britain?
Ally is a fickle word these days...

Ally has the same meaning it has always meant.

We used to have a President and Executive that understood diplomacy. We no longer do.

PS: Obama did no such thing.

 

[Moonglow]

You mean like Obama supporting ISIS in Syria? Or, the fight of Obama's allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, against our ally in Egypt? Or like our allies, the UN controlled France, Germany and Britain?
Ally is a fickle word these days...

Depends on the donation ratio.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You mean like Obama supporting ISIS in Syria? Or, the fight of Obama's allies, the Muslim Brotherhood, against our ally in Egypt? Or like our allies, the UN controlled France, Germany and Britain?
Ally is a fickle word these days...

Ally has the same meaning it has always meant.

We used to have a President and Executive that understood diplomacy. We no longer do.

PS: Obama did no such thing.

Oh, but he did.

On diplomacy, we've been weaving an ineffective story with that for 30 years.

It's now time to tell, not ask.

 

[Indeependent]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

 

[Moonglow]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

 

[Indeependent]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

 

[Moonglow]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

 

[Indeependent]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Which has what to do with the US in NATO in 2018?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

More importantly we should lose NATO.

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Non sequitur. This is not 1941.

 

[Indeependent]

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Non sequitur. This is not 1941.

Understand that Liberals would rather feed those living outside the US than the poor in the US.

 

[Moonglow]

Because when something works for 75 years we should abandon it.

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Non sequitur. This is not 1941.

No, but it could be, just be glad it isn't.

 

[Moonglow]

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Non sequitur. This is not 1941.

Understand that Liberals would rather feed those living outside the US than the poor in the US.

What poor? According to the GOP there is no poor and welfare needs to be cut, you know, that program that feeds Americas poor?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It works because we're paying for it.

Was it more expensive than a few million deaths?

Whose deaths?

Those that died in the last two world wars of Europe.

Non sequitur. This is not 1941.

No, but it could be, just be glad it isn't.

No it couldn't. The current circumstances have no connection to those in 1941.