No Nation in the World has existed in isolation since the beginning of the 20th Century. Like it or not, we live in an era of mankind when no nation can exist in isolation.
Why is this important? Because the direction of the world inevitably affects what happens in America. If China is gaining a toe-hold in Canada, or Greenland, do you think this doesn't affect the USA?
When Trump stated: "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens" you either agree with him or you don't.
If you do, then you need to understand, there are three major players in the world, and our world is more rapidly developing than at any time in human history. Artificial intelligence will play an absolutely key role to the future well-being not only of America, but of every person on the planet. Whoever wins the AI race, and whatever principles they uphold, will impact the future of the whole planet. America included.
America, Russia, China.
Not recognizing this point is extremely short-sighted.
What about Iran? Iran is the FINAL linchpin maintaining conflict and violence in the Middle East. Iran has sponsored terrorism and chaos in all their neighboring countries, helping to create the immigration crisis that Europe has undergone. But if there is peace in the Middle East, if the Iranian people are allowed to create a prosperous nation dedicated to the well-being of all its people, who benefits?
Everyone.
Everyone except the Globalist maniacs who want to subvert all nations to their will.
Everyone except those people who benefit from war and suffering.
This is why Trump has been moving to secure not just the American homeland - capturing and removal of illegal criminal immigrants - but securing South America - Venezuela, and their energy reserves, etc.
This is why Trump has been making peace deals around the world, bringing together nations that have been enemies for decades, or longer.
Why? Because a world at peace, a world where the different regions are no longer exploited by global corporations or agents of chaos, a world where every nation can finally look at the real American model and aspire to achieve some similar success, that world ensures the safety of America and the future of America.
And if you are worried about Israel, well, a liberated Iran would not empower Israel to pursue war, but rather make the Israeli war-machine redundant. If the Israel Machine is indeed evil, this action against the terrorist Iranian regime doesn't help them. It makes them weaker.
What matters is not the headline, the image, the action, but the WHY. And Trump's why is very, very clear.
Peace for America and the World means peace through strength.
The first duty of the American Government is to protect American Citizens
And that is exactly why Trump is doing what he's doing.
Anyone who cannot see this is ignoring everything that Trump has done. His track record speaks for itself.
Wow, why so agro?
"Patriot" What exactly do you think the world patriot means?
Is it an exclusive property of Americans? there are millions of 'patriots' around the world who are inspired by the patriotic heart of Donald Trump. A patriot means someone who loves their nation and their people.
You can be a patriot without being an American. I am a [my nation] patriot. I feel sorry for you if your viewpoint is so zenophobic to think that only American patriots are real patriots, and if you haven't realized that the Q movement became a force of inspiration for patriots all around the world. And that patriots can very much be aligned because of common principles aka loving one's own nation and people.
Your reply reads like a rather stuck-up kid throwing a tantrum.
In essence, your assertions include:
No one can share a viewpoint or opinion unless they are an authority. (I have never, ever stated "I'm an authority on what America First means".)
You dared question my perspective! How dare you? You are not even American???
I'm outraged that you would dare express a view!
(shock, horror. Newflash, there are plenty of dumb Americans who do not get either Trump or what he is doing, and there are plenty of non-Americans who get what Trump is doing far better than (I'd say) what most American do.)
In case you missed it, there were plenty of frogs here who happened to resonate with my view expressed in the post. I guess all of them are not American either.
And, I engaged you here in the premise of good-faith discussions, willing to learn more. I candidly expressed my lack of knowledge compared with yourself, even though I still attempted to engage and discuss.
Sadly, instead of discussing, you responded like a priggish kid.
Let me conclude with a question or two.
Do you think that Trump acted with the mindset that his first priority is the United States? Or is his mindset, nah, sometimes, just, American second or third?
Your points about his campaign and rhetoric are well made. But at, its essence, what you do think that Trump means when HE says 'America First'? Surely that counts for something?
Thanks anyway for the insight into your mentality, attitude and character. Best of luck.
Edit: Maybe the reason you have made so few contributions here is because your viewpoint is so perfect? Or because you are not 'an authority' on ... anything?
This is a Q board. It's not a place for authorities.
Note to self: arrogance is very rarely very becoming.
Yes, you're a Patriot of your country. Not an American Patriot. Yes, you being a Patriot of your country means you love your country and the people of your country and are loyal to your country. Goodie for them. As a Patriot of my country, you being on the side of your country means, what, exactly, to me?
As such, why do you feel like an authority on what America First is. Because you certainly seemed very convinced of your own authority and understanding of the issue in your OP. You sure didn't preface it with "Now, I'm not an American citizen, and I don't live in America, and I'm a Patriot of my own random ass country, and I don't really know what President Trump and the Republicans have actually been saying for about a decade now, even though my random ass country has the internet and I can access every single campaign rally and speech and news interview, but I haven't because <insert whatever reason why where>, but let me jump in and tell you how you're wrong about this!"
As an actual, real, in America, born in America American Patriot, I am not a fan of people who aren't Americans, aren't even in the US, muddling about with American issues.
And trying to tell Americans what "America First" does or does not mean, when you readily acknowledge that you don't really have much knowledge about what President Trump and the Republicans have actually been saying is absolutely asinine.
Why am I irritated? 1. Simply because I don't appreciate non-Americans telling actual Americans what to think about American issues. 2. Because you're actively damaging our credibility over things that you admit you don't know much about.
Yeah, it's nice and great and all that you're an Anon and you support Q. But that does not mean that you have any business at all telling Americans what to think about American issues.
Would you appreciate it if I jumped in and started lecturing you on whatever it is your government is saying/doing, while readily acknowledging I really don't know much about what is going on in your country, since I don't live there and I'm not a citizen there? But it's OK, because I'm also a Patriot (even if it's a Patriot of an entirely separate country, and as such, have completely different ideals/goals/loyalties/etc. than you).
You can have all the opinions you want. But your post above was not framed as an opinion piece. You were having a dandy old time telling people that they were wrong about certain stances. You were not framing it in a "In my opinion..." way. Before you jump back on your keyboard, go back and re-read it again, but this time pretend it's some random ass person from some random ass country who readily acknowledges that they don't live in your country and aren't a citizen of your country, and don't even really know what's actually being said day to day in your country, but they feel like they know better than you do, and are lecturing you about what you are wrong about in regards to your country.
You really don't see why someone would get irritated over that? Really? Be honest.
You comment rely actually pissed me off a lot. So I wrote in haste in reply.
So I'm going to try a more measured reply here.
I think you're take on my post is really very narrow. Others seemed to see where I was coming from.
I mean, you are welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't mean its correct, or right.
You read what I wrote as "lecturing" either you or others. Its a post. Taking it as me lecturing you (or others) I think is your very subjective reaction: it's certainly not what a lot of other people thought (well, those that responded).
You seem to be a bit fixated on people 'telling' others X, 'lecturing' others on Y, or on anyone having a viewpoint means they think they are an authority.
What this says to me is that this is probably how you view the world, and yes, your reply to me exhibited that behavior exactly. Instead of engaging in a discussion, you lectured me in your reply, you 'told me how it is' and you present yourself as some sort of authority.
The point of my post, by the way, is not "Donald Trump campaigned on American first and this means no military wars whatsoever". It's asking the question, what does America First, when push comes to shove, really mean.
And sorry, you don't get to determine who can express their views.
I suspect that you spend a lot of your daily life "telling others what to think". I'm not interested in that, frankly.
I would certainly welcome any constructive opinions and outside perspectives, if offered in good faith. No one has a monopoly on a perfect view.
To repeat, you took my post as 'lecturing to Americans what they should think' or do. Totally wrong perspective. You missed the point. Then, you missed an opportunity for both engagement and also potential expansion of your perspective.
I'll leave it there. I think you are too convinced of the perfectness of your viewpoint to participate in any real discussion, so I won't belabor the point.
Good day.
Your OP was not, in any way "asking" that question. It was flat out lecturing people as to what it means.
Obviously anything I'm going to say, you're going to say is biased or hostile and you're not going to even consider that you might be in the wrong. So I'm just going to let Grok inform you of how your post is lecturing others, since you seem to be utterly oblivious to it;
How this post can read as “lecturing”
“Lecturing” is a rhetorical posture: the writer positions themselves as the instructor, the audience as uninformed or confused, and disagreement as a failure of understanding rather than a reasonable alternate judgment. This post repeatedly uses didactic framing, imperatives, binary tests of loyalty, and condescending evaluations that trigger that perception.
Below are the main mechanisms, with examples from the text and why each reads as lecturing.
What it does
The title is not “Here’s my view.” It is “If you think X, tell them this.” That is a corrective script.
Example
“If You Think, Or Anyone In Your Circle Thinks ‘This Iran Attack is Not America First’, Tell Them (or Yourself) This”
Why it feels like lecturing
Implies the dissenting view is a misunderstanding to be fixed.
Presumes the writer has the “proper” interpretation and readers should repeat it to others.
What it does
It opens like a civics lecture: broad historical claim → “why this matters” → conclusion about what readers must accept.
Examples
“No Nation in the World has existed in isolation since the beginning of the 20th Century.”
“Like it or not, we live in an era… when no nation can exist in isolation.”
“Why is this important? Because…”
Why it feels like lecturing
“Like it or not” is a classic scolding construction: your preferences don’t matter; accept the lesson.
Rhetorical question (“Why is this important?”) followed by immediate answer is a teacher’s cadence, not a dialogue.
What it does
It frames the reader’s stance as a simple moral/identity choice, not a nuanced policy debate.
Example
“When Trump stated… you either agree with him or you don’t.”
“If you do, then you need to understand…”
Why it feels like lecturing
“Either/or” collapses a spectrum (agree with protecting citizens vs disagree with a specific attack, strategy, timing, legality, proportionality, escalation risk, etc.).
“You need to understand” asserts authority and treats readers as students who haven’t grasped basics.
What it does
It repeatedly tells the audience what they must see, recognize, or understand.
Examples
“you need to understand”
“Not recognizing this point is extremely short-sighted.”
“do you think this doesn’t affect the USA?” (leading question)
Why it feels like lecturing
Imperatives (“need to understand”) and judgments (“short-sighted”) are corrective, not exploratory.
The “do you think…?” question is not open-ended; it’s structured to imply only one reasonable answer.
What it does
Instead of treating dissent as competing values or risk assessments, it labels dissent as failure to see the obvious.
Example
“Anyone who cannot see this is ignoring everything that Trump has done.”
“His track record speaks for itself.”
Why it feels like lecturing
“Cannot see this” frames disagreement as a perceptual defect.
“Ignoring everything” moralizes the opponent as willfully obtuse.
“Speaks for itself” ends debate rather than engaging counterexamples.
What it does
It states debatable geopolitical claims as settled fact, with no caveats, evidence, or acknowledgement of uncertainties.
Examples
“Iran is the FINAL linchpin maintaining conflict and violence in the Middle East.”
“This is why Trump has been moving to secure… South America—Venezuela, and their energy reserves…”
“Trump’s why is very, very clear.”
Why it feels like lecturing
Absolutes (“FINAL linchpin,” “very, very clear”) communicate there is no legitimate alternative interpretation.
When a writer presents contested causal chains as obvious, it reads like instruction rather than argument.
What it does
It divides actors into good vs evil categories (“globalist maniacs”) and implies the reader should adopt that moral framing.
Examples
“Globalist maniacs who want to subvert all nations”
“agents of chaos”
“terrorist Iranian regime” (can be a political view; presented here as a settled label)
Why it feels like lecturing
Moral labeling pressures readers to align with the author’s worldview rather than evaluate claims.
It signals: “If you disagree, you’re helping the bad side.”
What it does
It asserts that skepticism is superficial, and only the author is focusing on what “matters.”
Examples
“What matters is not the headline, the image, the action, but the WHY.”
“And Trump’s why is very, very clear.”
Why it feels like lecturing
This is a common patronizing move: “You’re focused on appearances; I’m focused on truth.”
It implies critics are unserious or emotionally manipulated by headlines.
What it does
The post is written as: “Here’s reality → therefore this → therefore Trump’s action → therefore your criticism is wrong.”
Example sequence
“No nation can exist in isolation” → “three major players” → “AI race affects everyone” → “Iran is linchpin” → “action helps everyone” → “peace through strength” → “therefore Trump is right.”
Why it feels like lecturing
The structure leaves little room for alternate premises (e.g., whether an attack reduces conflict, whether it increases regional escalation, legality, second-order effects).
It reads like a lecture outline concluding with a single approved takeaway.
Concrete “lecturing” signals in one place (quick checklist)
Directives: “you need to understand”
Binary tests: “either agree or you don’t”
Condescension: “short-sighted”
Dismissal: “anyone who cannot see this”
Absolutes: “FINAL linchpin,” “very, very clear”
Moral sorting: “globalist maniacs”
Debate-stoppers: “track record speaks for itself”
Each of these is individually common; together they strongly produce a lecturing impression.
What it would look like if it were not lecturing (contrast examples)
Original-style line
“If you do, then you need to understand…”
Less-lecturing rewrite
“If your priority is protecting Americans, one argument is that…”
Original-style line
“Not recognizing this point is extremely short-sighted.”
Less-lecturing rewrite
“If someone disagrees, it may be because they weigh escalation risk or legality differently.”
Original-style line
“Anyone who cannot see this is ignoring everything…”
Less-lecturing rewrite
“People can read his record differently depending on which actions they emphasize.”
The rewrites reduce lecturing by:
Removing commands and insults,
Acknowledging plausible disagreement,
Treating the topic as contested rather than settled.
If you want this mapped more formally, I can annotate the post line-by-line with labels (imperative, binary framing, dismissal, moralizing, absolutism) and explain the reader-impact for each.