Trump We Can Believe In: New York Times Makes Clear Why Anti-Imperialists Must Support Donald Trump

By Joshua Tartakovsky, 2 April 2016

Donald Trump’s recent statements to the New York Times on world affairs make it crystal clear why every genuine anti-imperialist, any person who supports countries maintaining their sovereignty and getting their act together on their own, anyone who is sick and tired of the Saudis and of millions dying from the arrogant and foolish campaign to “bring democracy” to the Middle East, must support Trump. It is crystal clear.

But in order to explain why this is the case, the New York Times’ coverage of his words must be analyzed. It is the liberal imperialist paper par excellence.

First, the headline: “In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First, and Everybody Else Pays.”

How shocking!

Trump doesn’t want the immense US military industrial complex to continue to decide the fate of nations. If countries want US bases there, let them pay for it. Why should the US pay for it? Of course, liberal imperialists who want more wars and profit from wars, want the US to maintain its aggressive military presence around the world, which is why Trump’s ideas shock them. They claim he thinks “America comes first” as if this was something bad. But do US bases help these nations? Do they help the American people? Of course not. They are imperialist and are used to conquer nations so contracts can be made for a few corporations (Halliburton, anyone?) and the profit made does not reach the American people.

The New York Times then says:

Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability.

Wow. Finally someone who speaks about Saudi Arabia, the international sponsor of terrorism that maintains the petro-dollar’s hegemony. Trump takes the common sense approach: if Saudi Arabia wants to be taken seriously, it has to fight the Islamic State. Now, of course we know that Saudi Arabia supports the Islamic State. But what Trump is actually implying is: if Saudi Arabia wants us to take it seriously, it has to clean up its act so we can finish off ISIS together. And, as anyone who follows Trump knows, Trump is against toppling the Syrian president since it would destabilize Syria and won’t be good for the Syrian people and he hates ISIS.

Trump then takes a jab at Saudi Arabia.

If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection,” Mr. Trump said during a 100-minute interview on foreign policy, spread over two phone calls on Friday, “I don’t think it would be around.”

So, basically Saudi Arabia is a useless parasite that relies on US protection. It cannot even defend itself. Americans don’t like Saudi Arabia. In fact, they hate it. Trump expressed his clear disdain for these Wahabi fanatics. Of course, the New York Times may have preferred Trump not put America first and  protect Saudi Arabia.

Then:

He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States “keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it,” Mr. Trump said.

What’s wrong about that? North Korea is not a threat to South Korea! It has long insisted that it arms itself only to protect itself from a US invasion, and that it would disarm if US bases and nuclear weapons would be taken out of the entire peninsula.  Let South Korea renegotiate with North Korea without US interference. But that’s not what the liberal imperialists want. They want the US to “protect” South Korea and then invade North Korea so the US market can take over the country.

Somewhere later on:

He again faulted the Obama administration’s handling of the negotiations with Iran last year — “It would have been so much better if they had walked away a few times,” he said — but offered only one new idea about how he would change its content: Ban Iran’s trade with North Korea.

So, Trump did the forbidden. He dared disagree with a deal Obama made with Iran. He thinks it is a bad deal. What a sacrereligious thought! Trump advocated “only one new idea.” How limited of him. What is that idea? Banning Iran’s trade with North Korea. Not bombing the two countries, just banning trade between two particular countries. How limited is his imagination! The poor Iranians and North Koreans would have much preferred if he would have been abit more creative and would have thought of more ideas, like sanctions so that there will be a scarcity of much-needed medicines on the counters, or invading their countries with US troops.

Then:

Mr. Mr. Trump struck similar themes when he discussed the future of NATO, which he called “unfair, economically, to us,” and said he was open to an alternative organization focused on counterterrorism. He argued that the best way to halt China’s placement of military airfields and antiaircraft batteries on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea was to threaten its access to American markets.

So Trump does not want to militarize the South China Sea and send US boats to patrol its borders and intimidate it. He wants to protect the US economy by blocking Chinese products. What’s so awful about that? Countries can protect their economies. Must Amerians be forced to buy Chinese goods? Why can’t companies relocate to US and open factories for American workers?

Trump also dislikes NATO. Yes, the same NATO that destroyed Serbia, Iraq, Libya, the list goes on and on… Indeed, NATO is unfair to America. Did the American people, not corporations, ever benefit from any of NATO’s many “humanitarian bombing” campaigns??

Then Trump says he is against the Bush doctrine of “spreading democracy” around the world, which we know has only resulted in chaos and misery in the Middle East and in hundreds of thousands of dead with no democracy at all.  Trump says he wants to put America first, and for America to watch out for its own interests. Makes sense to me. Only that according to the New York Times perverse version of events, bombing Iraq is not putting America first. It’s caring about the people of Iraq.

Then:

At no point did he express any belief that American forces deployed on military bases around the world were by themselves valuable to the United States, though Republican and Democratic administrations have for decades argued that they are essential to deterring military adventurism, protecting commerce and gathering intelligence.

Indeed, US bases all around the globe are not valubale to the American people and they themselves are the emboidment of “military adventurism” which have helped no one. Just ask the people of Vietnam. Ask the people of Germany if they want NATO bases on their land, now that the USSR is not there. Just ask them.

“Protecting commerce”? You must be kidding. Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen has disrupted commerce between China and Europe.  US bases are not protecting commerce!

The reader is welcome now to read the New York Times article for himself or herself, since hopefully one gets the point by now. All that one needs is a critical mind. But two last points:

Mr. Trump was not impressed with Ms. Merkel’s handling of the migrant crisis, however: “Germany is being destroyed by Merkel’s naïveté, or worse,” he said. He suggested that Germany and the Gulf nations should pay for the “safe zones” he wants to set up in Syria for refugees, and for protecting them once built.

Let the migrants stay in Syria, they are protected there by the Syrian Army. The Syrians just liberated Palmyra. Why must migrants come to Europe? Europe has massive unemployment already. There have been sex attacks in all over Europe, and acts of terrorism in Paris and Brussels. Does it really make sense for Merkel to take on so many migrants who will be paid slave labor when as a result Germans will lose their jobs? Well, only if she does not have the good of the German people in mind! Does emptying countries of their inhabitants and sending them all to the West help anyone when the global economy and domesitc economies are in a deep crisis? Merkel agreed to take on a million of migrants while she advocates the departure of President Assad which would result in chaos. Why must we allow her to feel good about the destruction, deaths, rapes and mulitation her sickening policy of supporting jihadist rebels caused, by all of a sudden pretending to be Mother Theresa and taking Syrians after destroying Syria?

And one last point, where no explanation should be needed:|

Told that sanctions under United States law still bar most American companies from doing business with Iran, he said: “So, how stupid is that? We give them the money and we now say, ‘Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,’ right?”

Joshua Tartakovsky

See author's posts