1 "Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes."

     Does he mean like we did in WW II, or when President Reagan was staring the Soviets down during the end of the Cold War?

     I'm not sayin' he's wrong about the present Administration but "always" seems a bit...much.  We took KoÅ›ciuszko back in after the Poles tossed him out, didn't we?

2 <i> "Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes."</i>

And really, in the end, that's how it should be.  Stand on your own, people, or start paying taxes.

3 Agreed we should put our own interests first (any other way points us toward transnational progressivism and Hello U.N.!). But having said that, our record of supporting allies (or, at least, giving them fair notice in advance of removing our support) has not been good. Think England and France during the Suez crisis, the Hungarians in 1956, the Cuban anti-communists, Vietnamese left-behinds, the Shah of Iran, Israel (repeatedly), Georgia, Colombia, Honduras, etc., etc.

For every one, you can make an argument that continued support was not in America’s interest. Fair enough. But considered together, the record is uncomfortable. (And note that this treatment of allies has been bi-partisan, although in the last 40 years more often at the hands of Democrat administrations or as a result of Democrat pressure.)

Wałęsa, again

I simply don’t like this policy, not because this shield was required, but [because of] the way we were treated.

We failed to give the Poles fair notice. That’s showing no class.

4 The name of the newspaper is quite accurate.

The Poles got Fakt in the azz by their so called allies again.

5 @3

Standing by your allies through thick and thin will be in your own best interests, in the long run.