Trump's foreign policy for America

[+and-then]

In diplomatic negotiations you can stall, but if you are sincere about the negotiations you cannot just walk away. When dealing with a sovereign state, the laws and ethics you operate under do not necessarily apply to how the "other side" operates - but in business deals you are both constrained by the same system of "rules". This is only one of the aspects in which business negotiation is different to diplomatic.

Trump is used to negotiating when the rules are the same for both sides, and he has confidence he either knows those rules better than the other party or can bluff that he does. This will not apply in diplomatic situations. His boast of being a strong negotiator is meaningless in this context.

Look at his claim about Prez Obama's "weak deal with Iran" as an example. Iran was under all sorts of sanctions (boycotts) already yet was still developing it's nuclear industry. Obama had a choice between "walking away" and letting Iran develop nuclear power without any international oversight involved, or engage in diplomacy to give up something to Iran (ease the sanctions) in return for Iran allowing greater access to it's nuclear program by international authorities as well as an agreement/deal that nuclear weapons were not part of that program's ambitions.

"Walking away" is never an option, unless you want to surrender to the other party's whim. The US got more-or-less the best deal they could get, and Iran got more-or-less the best deal they could get. In addition, the relationship between the US and Iran got just a little bit better. That's not "weak", that is effective diplomacy. Trump, if he sticks to his "walk away" tough line, would have allowed Iran to continue to develop it's nuclear program without any international oversight and would probably have worsened the US-Iran relationship to boot.

You tell me what is the best outcome.

Do tell.... Iran got everything they demanded and more that we weren't even made privy to and they have become MORE bombastic toward the US. Care to cite what improvements you allude to? And Reagan got up from the table and smooth walked out on Gorbachev at Reykjavic during the Nuclear arms (intermediate range) reduction talks. How'd THAT turn out? And no, the only option was NOT to simply allow the Iranians to do as they please. You people on the Left refuse to accept reality where enemy intentions are concerned and if your ideas continue to hold sway this nation will go down the tubes. I get nauseous when I think of the yammering idiots who even as they are being attacked here on our own soil would still be shouting at their political opponents. As if blame is really going to matter at that point. Childish and stupid, IMO.

[+OverSword]

Do you thunk Trump has a chance against Clinton... like in suddenly the moderate Republicans will discover their radical side?

I think he's the only one that can beat her out of the candidates that Joe average is aware of. Actually I think he can beat her. Once it's just the two of them on stage he will attack her with one example after another of her lies and failures. She seems un-electable to me so I don't get why she's the darling of the party.

What, besides that the Mullahs turn over and die, did we not get out of the Iran deal?

I'll answer that in a decade after they've nuked Jerusalem. Besides Leo is the one that cited Iran I just stated walking out on negotiations is a tool that has been used many times. He's acting like it's OK for business but not for diplomats. Edited April 28, 2016 by OverSword

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Do tell.... Iran got everything they demanded and more that we weren't even made privy to and they have become MORE bombastic toward the US. Care to cite what improvements you allude to? And Reagan got up from the table and smooth walked out on Gorbachev at Reykjavic during the Nuclear arms (intermediate range) reduction talks. How'd THAT turn out? And no, the only option was NOT to simply allow the Iranians to do as they please. You people on the Left refuse to accept reality where enemy intentions are concerned and if your ideas continue to hold sway this nation will go down the tubes. I get nauseous when I think of the yammering idiots who even as they are being attacked here on our own soil would still be shouting at their political opponents. As if blame is really going to matter at that point. Childish and stupid, IMO.

But you would be misdirecting your irr since the main financier of Islamic terrorism on American soil is not Iran - but Saudi one of our main allies. But never let your rabid hated of all things Iranian get in the way of the reality on the ground.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

I think he's the only one that can beat her out of the candidates that Joe average is aware of. Actually I think he can beat her. Once it's just the two of them on stage he will attack her with one example after another of her lies and failures. She seems un-electable to me so I don't get why she's the darling of the party.

I'll answer that in a decade after they've nuked Jerusalem.

So, in plain English: we did not get that the Mullahs turned over and died so we want to go to war over that. An din another thread you question whether we need the European staging areas. Sometimes I wonder whether some switch on their brain before typing.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

If we are to accept that Iran's main ambition is to gain nuclear weapons, it would not be to threaten the USA - nor even to threaten Israel. It would be to create a counterweight to the Sampson wielding neighbour. To assume that they wanted a nuclear weapon to launch a preemptive attack assumes that they are as religiously deranged as those who suggest it.

The assumption that Iran is so motivated flies in the face of all the evidence, but seems entirely plausible to people who's whole life is a wait for the rapture and our inevitable doom.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 28, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

In a nutshell you just explained why the Republicans are dead in the water - a total inability to choose anyone of moderation.

Br Cornelius

while the Democrats are where they are today by being able to con people into believing that they do have a "moderate" candidate? (Well, they do, in comparison with their other candidate certainly, but the Democratic machine is doing all it cam to conspire that he doesn't get chosen.) Edited April 28, 2016 by Otto von Pickelhaube

[Space Commander Travis]

Do you thunk Trump has a chance against Clinton... like in suddenly the moderate Republicans will discover their radical side?

Kasich had a chance, Rubio had a chance... but I guess running behind a radical sales man expert in selling himself (and not much else as the pending law suits against him show) was much more important to make "America Great Again™" And speaking of lawsuits, it sounds very likely that Mr. Trump will be dragged to court in the middle of the campaign because he got sued for fraud in connection of his Trump University. If that makes people think that he is any different than Hillary is very doubtful.

kasich would have had a chance against Clinton? How many people had even heard of him until a week or two ago? And how many people have heard of the name Clinton? You think he could possibly hav competed against a brand that size?

[Leonardo]

kasich would have had a chance against Clinton? How many people had even heard of him until a week or two ago? And how many people have heard of the name Clinton? You think he could possibly hav competed against a brand that size?

Not many outside the US may be familiar with his name, but he is well-known in the only demographic that matters to him and his chance of becoming US President.

[RavenHawk]

Not many outside the US may be familiar with his name, but he is well-known in the only demographic that matters to him and his chance of becoming US President.

Ohio???

[+OverSword]

So, in plain English: we did not get that the Mullahs turned over and died so we want to go to war over that. An din another thread you question whether we need the European staging areas. Sometimes I wonder whether some switch on their brain before typing.

I'm supposing that others will either foot their fare share of the bill or take full responsibility for their defense. I'm sure if we plan on invading Iran or any other country in the region staging areas can be negotiated at less cost that funding multiple bases for decades on end. Sometimes I wonder if some people only argue for the sake of contrarianism not because they actually believe their own points of view.

[+OverSword]

If we are to accept that Iran's main ambition is to gain nuclear weapons, it would not be to threaten the USA - nor even to threaten Israel. It would be to create a counterweight to the Sampson wielding neighbour.

Br Cornelius

Makes sense to me. As far as nuclear weapons can make sense anyways.

[+OverSword]

Not many outside the US may be familiar with his name, but he is well-known in the only demographic that matters to him and his chance of becoming US President.

Ummm....nope. Outside his own state he's invisible.

[questionmark]

I'm supposing that others will either foot their fare share of the bill or take full responsibility for their defense. I'm sure if we plan on invading Iran or any other country in the region staging areas can be negotiated at less cost that funding multiple bases for decades on end. Sometimes I wonder if some people only argue for the sake of contrarianism not because they actually believe their own points of view.

They have solved their problems for the time being, we need those bases, not they (though some still think they do.... decades of brain washing seem to have worked sustainably)

Edited April 28, 2016 by questionmark

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I'm supposing that others will either foot their fare share of the bill or take full responsibility for their defense. I'm sure if we plan on invading Iran or any other country in the region staging areas can be negotiated at less cost that funding multiple bases for decades on end. Sometimes I wonder if some people only argue for the sake of contrarianism not because they actually believe their own points of view.

Running an empire involves occupying territory (ie military bases).

If you give up your bases then you give up your empire building ambitions.

You may not have caught on to the game your government is playing - but empire building is certainly it.

Unfortunately you don't get the goodies of empire without the empire (thats wealth to you and me). The main issue for America over the last few years is the cost of its ambitions have outstripped the revenues. That unfortunately usually means the end of those ambitions.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 28, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

Running an empire involves occupying territory (ie military bases).

If you give up your bases then you give up your empire building ambitions.

You may not have caught on to the game your government is playing - but empire building is certainly it.

Unfortunately you don't get the goodies of empire without the empire (thats wealth to you and me). The main issue for America over the last few years is the cost of its ambitions have outstripped the revenues. That unfortunately usually means the end of those ambitions.

Br Cornelius

So why are you consistently attacking the one who says that they'll do that? the other ones certainly won't.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

So why are you consistently attacking the one who says that they'll do that? the other ones certainly won't.

You believe that Trump is different ??

Trump represents one of the main beneficiaries of Americas empire building ambitions - his businesses go where-ever American bases go.

He is the piglet that suckless on the teat of Empire

Br Cornelius

Edited April 28, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[+OverSword]

Running an empire involves occupying territory (ie military bases).

If you give up your bases then you give up your empire building ambitions.

You may not have caught on to the game your government is playing - but empire building is certainly it.

Unfortunately you don't get the goodies of empire without the empire (thats wealth to you and me). The main issue for America over the last few years is the cost of its ambitions have outstripped the revenues. That unfortunately usually means the end of those ambitions.

Br Cornelius

Yeah well I don't get the goodies of empire I'm sure I will work my ass off until I die and the "empire" can suck it. I'm not participatory further than the taxes they steal from me in order to ensure profits for big oil and other huge corporations.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Yeah well I don't get the goodies of empire I'm sure I will work my ass off until I die and the "empire" can suck it. I'm not participatory further than the taxes they steal from me in order to ensure profits for big oil and other huge corporations.

Oh yes you do. Just about the poorest American is richer than 90% of the rest of the world.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

“The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest.” This is the truest thing Trump said. When American Exceptionalism and American Hegemony is prevalent in the world, the world prospers in relative peace.

One statement I disagree with is, “We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.” Some of the things he says we will do will require military force. That will require picking up the pieces afterward so that the same environment and the same ideology is not left to rebuild. The Marshall Plan was far more lucrative than the Treaty of Versailles and it kept the Germans involved in European culture. There was no national guilt as was after WWI. The Raj is another example of successful nation-building. Certainly we can do better.

Trump is also incorrect about Iraq. It was a very necessary war. It wasn’t Bush that created ISIS with the invasion. It was the retreat by Obama and the void in power. Our showing of weakness. You have to admit that Bush bumbled his way through things but the Surge set things right. Trump believes that Saddam could have held down radical Islam indefinitely. Dictatorships do not last and the fall of Saddam’s regime would have been worse than what we have now. Iraq was being torn between the Shia majority and the Sunni Salafists. Shia influence would have effectively encircled Saudi Arabia. Without the invasion, Iran would have nukes already. That’s a scenario that will bring WWIII.

I am with Trump when he says that if we do use military force, we do so with the intent to win – at all costs.

[Space Commander Travis]

Trump is also incorrect about Iraq. It was a very necessary war. It wasn't Bush that created ISIS with the invasion. It was the retreat by Obama and the void in power. Our showing of weakness. You have to admit that Bush bumbled his way through things but the Surge set things right. Trump believes that Saddam could have held down radical Islam indefinitely. Dictatorships do not last and the fall of Saddam's regime would have been worse than what we have now. Iraq was being torn between the Shia majority and the Sunni Salafists. Shia influence would have effectively encircled Saudi Arabia. Without the invasion, Iran would have nukes already. That's a scenario that will bring WWIII.

I am with Trump when he says that if we do use military force, we do so with the intent to win – at all costs.

And Christ, what a nightmare that would have been, poor liberal little Saudi Arabia surrounded and bullied by all those extremists. They're the sole bastion of democracy in the entire Middle East.

[Space Commander Travis]

Dictatorships may not last, but if you've got the U.S. Government propping you up, they can last a fair while.

[Space Commander Travis]

Poor liberal little Saudi Arabia mightn't have been able to plot to attack America if America hadn't been protecting it. Poor liberal little Saudi Arabia.

[RavenHawk]

Running an empire involves occupying territory (ie military bases).

There are many forms of Empire, including an anti-Empire. Military bases strategically placed will also check those wanabe Empires. Which in the end will provide better prosperity for the entire world.

If you give up your bases then you give up your empire building ambitions.

You may not have caught on to the game your government is playing - but empire building is certainly it.

That is the game that we learned from the masters. And as long as there are at least two nations on this planet, the game will always be played. The question for you is, do you want someone less benevolent than America running the game? For sure, you will not find any more benevolent.

Unfortunately you don't get the goodies of empire without the empire (thats wealth to you and me). The main issue for America over the last few years is the cost of its ambitions have outstripped the revenues. That unfortunately usually means the end of those ambitions.

And what is its ambitions? Hint, I’ve already stated them.

[+OverSword]

Oh yes you do. Just about the poorest American is richer than 90% of the rest of the world.

Br Cornelius

Bet you have a nicer car than I do.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Bet you have a nicer car than I do.

Bet your car is nicer than my bike.

#America #spoilsofEmpire