Latest Trump-bashing article misses the mark

There is plenty you could criticize Donald Trump for, but the Financial Times seems to have become a cheerleader for the US Dominated Global Military Empire. So of course they prefer Hitlery and make a number of unfair attacks on her opponent.

Here is some of the nonsense written by Philip Stephens where he expresses his fear that the “liberal rules-based system” that has kept “global order” for the last seventy years is breaking down:

Mr Putin is trying to redraw borders in Europe

Just an outright lie.  The US expanded NATO right up to Russia’s border.  The US funded the overthrow of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government which drove the inhabitants of Crimea to vote for Russian annexation.  Who is the aggressor here?  What other borders has Russia “redrawn?”  I believe the US and NATO redrew the borders in the Balkans in the 1990s.  But that was okay because liberalism.

the Middle East is in flames

Thanks to the “liberal” Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s meddling there.  How is this Trump’s fault?  He hasn’t been president and it’s already “in flames.”  Seems more like it’s Hillary’s fault.

European unity is fracturing

I’m not conceding that this is a bad thing, but at any rate, the main reason it’s fracturing is because Europe’s version of Hillary, Germany’s Angela Merkel, has flooded the continent with Muslim “refugees.” The refugee crisis, by the way, was caused by Hillary’s Middle Eastern wars.

jihadi terrorism is spreading

Again, this is due to the Iraq War that Hillary supported, and her meddling in Syria and Libya.  But the article suggests somehow that this is Trump’s fault or that he’ll make it worse.

pluralism is challenged by authoritarianism

This is just an example of the meaningless gibberish smug liberal writers use to try and sound smart.

China is contesting the status quo in the South China Sea and its neighbours are rearming in response

What’s President Hillary going to do about it?  Start a naval war with China?  Give Vietnam money and weapons so they can lose a war with China more slowly?  Why is this the USA’s problem? If Trump wants to stay out of the South China Sea (I’m not really sure what his position is), then I would support that.

populists are storming the citadels across advanced democracies.

Precisely because the leaders of these democracies have been carrying out the policies advocated by the likes of Phlip Stephens.  I guess democracy’s only good when the globalists win elections.  Otherwise it’s “dangerous populism.”

He questions the US security umbrella in the Pacific

And everyone knows that’s dangerous to question.  I mean obviously the USA has to defend Japan and South Korea for the rest of eternity because they’re such poor defenseless countries.

He undercuts the credibility of Nato’s defence of Europe

Right.  I’m sure if the US takes troops out of Germany, the Russians will invade.  And Germany could never afford to pay for their own defense.  And once Russia takes over Germany, then it will be England.  Then they’ll invade New York City.  Oh my God!!! Trump is so dangerous!

the US might stand by if Russian troops marched into the Baltic states

Of course it would.  Does Philip Stephens really believe that if Russia occupied Estonia tomorrow that the USA would do anything about it other than pass more sanctions and condemn it in the UN?  What could the USA actually do?  Launch a global nuclear war?  And what evidence is there that Putin would have any interest in taking over the Baltic States?  What benefit would there be to him or the Russian people?  None.  This is just fear mongering masquerading as serious foreign policy analysis.

There is no sense in any of this that American national security is safeguarded by alliances and international order.

That’s because it’s not.  These alliances are all one sided.  The USA defends Estonia.  What the Hell is Estonia going to do for America?  How is having troops in South Korea enhancing the national security of ordinary Americans?  Is the only thing stopping North Korea from nuking Los Angels the 30,000 soldiers on its border?  Does anyone really believe that?  What is the evidence that any alliance has ever benefited the average citizens of the USA?

Remind me to stop reading articles that start out by lauding the “liberal global order.”

Image result for us military empire

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *