Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world. One thing I agreed with Trump policy was this inward-looking aspect - no more stupid wars, no more pulling the weight of NATO and no more nation building in ME. Note that these policies were bipartisan - Bushes and Clintons/Obama supported them and spun the military industrial complex slot machine. What Trump did was very much in the stark contrast to the classic liberal/conservative stance of US foreign policy. Essentially a more lucid version of Ron Paul.
> Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.
Unfair share? Based on what? The spending is directly correlated to USA's interests, there is no nanny-ing or "good will" going on, it's a matter of purely international interests. Looking at this with the patronising "unfair share" is a bit preposterous.
I'd say it's pretty unfair to a lot of countries being forced under the sphere of influence of the US to be continuously subjugated, through foreign policy or direct meddling in internal affairs, like the whole of Latin America. That is really fucking unfair.
OP completely missing the point why US is spending so much money on military. US doesn't care about ANYONE but US. All moves and "nannying" is strategical in nature and to US benefit.
Nanny as in defense pacts and treaties with other nations, which is why the MIC is sustained. It’s a strategic tool. Selling defense equipment is big business.
> Good, US has been spending unfair share and has been the nanny of the world.
Do you really believe the US has been doing that selflessly?
I mean, it's OK to no longer want to be an imperialistic nation. The feeling I get from people with that kind of message, though, is that they usually don't want to lose the benefits of being hegemonic. They just don't want to pay the upkeep for it.
"unfair" is, in my view, the wrong way to frame it. It's a question of cost/benefit analysis. Does the US, by virtue of its effective global military presence, gain more through spending and maintaining it, in order to protect allies and its own interests, even if said allies fail to contribute a "fair" amount? (Whatever that may mean)
A loss of military hegemony will most likely reduce the US's global political and economic role as other countries move to fill that void or take advantage of the absence (China, Russia, at present). The net effect will likely be a shrinking of the US economy in the end, and not growth or even sustainment.
It's difficult to imagine Trump as "a more lucid version" of anyone? One would expect Rep. Paul could talk more intelligently than Pres. Trump on pretty much any topic, with the possible exception of USA corporate bankruptcy law.
With respect to the substance of your comment, sure, Trump talked a good game about stopping the stupid wars. He just never got around to actually doing that.
