Trump's foreign policy for America

[RavenHawk]

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.

They are? What they are, are the primary source of the world's oil. And it's in the center of a struggle between two sects of the most primitive and intolerant religion on the planet. Right now, we have better influence in the Sunni camp.

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

We weren't supporting Saddam since '83 or '86. A "fair while" is still not indefinite enough when up against Salafism.

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.

Don't think I excuse SA for that, but the key is to seek some semblance of stability. But I don't see any benefit to change camels in mid-stream. Neither is better than the other. But you've got to pick one over the other and put up with your ally's crap until such time you can squash them with the least loss to you. Switching between SA and Iran every generation or so isn't going to accomplish anything. Of course, we probably wouldn't be dealing with this if Carter had supported the Shah in the first place. There would have been no Saddam, no ISIS, no Taliban, no Bin Laden, etc.

Edited April 28, 2016 by RavenHawk

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Bet you have a nicer car than I do.

I bet not.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

may be if you were doing something useful with your life, something other than "pursue injustice" you would have. a nice car and nice house, and nice bikes, and no worries how to pay for all that, everyone makes their own choices.

Edited April 28, 2016 by aztek

[+OverSword]

I bet not.

Br Cornelius

If you own one it's nicer than mine.

[aztek]

Of course, we probably wouldn't be dealing with this if Carter had supported the Shah in the first place. There would have been no Saddam, no ISIS, no Taliban, no Bin Laden, etc.

there would be someone else, there is always someone\something else, "evil vs good" is an eternal fight,

Edited April 28, 2016 by aztek

[FredTheManiac]

Trumpo is a disaster.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

may be if you were doing something useful with your life, something other than "pursue injustice" you would have. a nice car and nice house, and nice bikes, and no worries how to pay for all that, everyone makes their own choices.

I have a lovely house which I entirely own. in fact I own everything I need and want (even that old banger of a car) and have no debts to anyone. Not many people can say that about themselves.

I made good choices, mostly, so am not blaming anyone or complaining about my lot in life.

So your concern is touching, but entirely misplaced. Care for yourself.

Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

there would be someone else, there is always someone\something else, "evil vs good" is an eternal fight,

Different approaches to reality is all there is, some better than others. There is no such thing as "Good vs Evil" (which would require an external yardstick which has nevber been found), its just a little fiction we tell ourselves to justify our own little atrocities.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

there would be someone else, there is always someone\something else, "evil vs good" is an eternal fight,

Yes, that is very true. As I say, there is always the barbarian at the gate. But there is something else to that. We can have the position that history tells us this is the case and take actions that helps control the inevitable and manage it. Or we can be PC or afraid to offend somebody and allow maximum entropy full rein. If Carter had supported the Shah, the revolution in Iran would have been thwarted. The US and the West would have not sought partnerships with Saddam in his war with Iran. He would probably have fallen in a Shia revolt but it would have stayed a local matter. The invasion of Afghanistan probably would not have happened. There would have been no Mujahedeen and hence, Bin laden would not have gained the experience he needed to become a leader. Radical Islam would only be known as Wahhabism or Salafism. Moderates might be able to quell its rise?? But there would have been no al Qaeda or ISIS or a hundred others. Or it would have been in a different form in which Moderates could find it easier to separate themselves from.

Different approaches to reality is all there is, some better than others. There is no such thing as "Good vs Evil" (which would require an external yardstick which has nevber been found), its just a little fiction we tell ourselves to justify our own little atrocities.

Of course it is a different approach, that’s why it is good vs evil. We do have an external yardstick and it’s been known for a long time. It’s called morals. If you want to refer to it as a ‘little fiction’, then whose ‘little atrocities’ would you rather live with? Oh yeah that right, you probably wouldn’t live with *their* little atrocities.

[Leonardo]

I'm supposing that others will either foot their fare share of the bill or take full responsibility for their defense.

In the context of what Trump was talking about, "others" do take responsibility for their own defence. The money the US spends on "bolstering" alliances such as NATO is money it spends on it's own programs - such as the missile shield located in Europe, US-operated military bases, etc. The US spends extra on those programs because it wants to, not because Europe wants it to. Sure, Europe takes advantage of all that cash the US spends, but it's not asking the US to spend it.

The US is happy to spend all that money because it boosts their international image and projects the power of the US. So, it's not that the allies of the US aren't spending what they need to to defend themselves, it's that the US wants to have all these overseas programs. And if Trump wants to cut back all that spending, then the US will no longer have the powerful image it has around the globe. Quid pro quo.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Leonardo

[+OverSword]

The US is happy to spend all that money because it boosts their international image and projects the power of the US.

I wouldn't put that to a popular vote were I TPTB. Edited April 28, 2016 by OverSword

[+and-then]

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

I actually do not challenge you on the first part of your statement. As usual though, the second half is just wrong and you don't even care to try to understand the realities. I actually have had a couple of Iranian friends. I know a very little of their culture - but they seem to be some of the most gracious and hospitable people to strangers that you could ever ask to meet. OTOH YOU are so wrapped up in ridiculing me and conservatism in general that you are blind to what the Iranian LEADERSHIP is doing in that region. Or perhaps you do understand it and agree. Either way, I think that only a person disconnected from reality or complicit with the plan could look at that situation and assume it's a plus for the world.

[Yamato]

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.

Walking out and cutting out are two different things. Reagan walked in before he walked out. He didn't say "Evil Empire!" and turn into a flaming isolationist before he was even elected.

Controlling Iran is none of our business in the first place. "This nation is going to go down the tubes" because we're engaged in diplomacy with Iran? What the hell does that mean? What slippery slope are you sliding down? I have no idea what fear mongering Zionist Neocon fantasy you're going to cook up next but I'm sure it'll be good.

[Likely Guy]

He said a whole lot. And presented it in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. I guess you didn't understand...

Which was spoken like a fifth grader, from a teleprompted speech that seems like it was written by five different people. None of them agreed.

The whole 40 minute speech could have just been boiled down into one second, "America First". The rest, simply didn't make sense.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Likely Guy

[Space Commander Travis]

In the context of what Trump was talking about, "others" do take responsibility for their own defence. The money the US spends on "bolstering" alliances such as NATO is money it spends on it's own programs - such as the missile shield located in Europe, US-operated military bases, etc. The US spends extra on those programs because it wants to, not because Europe wants it to. Sure, Europe takes advantage of all that cash the US spends, but it's not asking the US to spend it.

The US is happy to spend all that money because it boosts their international image and projects the power of the US. So, it's not that the allies of the US aren't spending what they need to to defend themselves, it's that the US wants to have all these overseas programs. And if Trump wants to cut back all that spending, then the US will no longer have the powerful image it has around the globe. Quid pro quo.

I wouldn't put that to a popular vote were I TPTB.

Yes, exactly. That "image" is largely one as a bully. Is that really the image they want? Or rather, the leaders might well want it, but would it really benefit the people as a whole?

I know Leo would be keen to attack Trumpo at every opportunity, but you're really speaking out in support of American militarism here?

Edited April 29, 2016 by Otto von Pickelhaube

[Yamato]

So Trump is going to "lead the free world", we're going to have the biggest most beautifully funded military ever, and we don't even blink about the drugs these brave people are being forced to take? Bigger military, bigger drug profits, bigger lives destroyed. For what? The welfare of Israel, our allies, and also ourselves.

According to Trump, Iran has become a great power in a very short time and that's unacceptable, because of Israel's sake, and our allies, and ours too. America first!

Why is a Great Iran our problem? Do any of us actually think the US President decides who's great in the world and who isn't? Why's Iran our problem? Iran is our problem because Israel is our stepchild.

[Space Commander Travis]

* That's the funny thing here actually; the people who attack Trump so consistently and vociferously are those who'd usually criticise American military involvement overseas. Now that Trumpo has spoken against it, they're suddenly finding themselves having to defend American military involvement overseas! He does confuse people!

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Of course it is a different approach, that’s why it is good vs evil. We do have an external yardstick and it’s been known for a long time. It’s called morals. If you want to refer to it as a ‘little fiction’, then whose ‘little atrocities’ would you rather live with? Oh yeah that right, you probably wouldn’t live with *their* little atrocities.

Morality is a human invention which varies with time and place, it represents no absolute yardstick. If you disagree - show me where morality lives if not in your head or on a page written by a human mind.

Is the justification that ISIS gives for killing 100 people materially any different to the justification we use to drone strike a village and kill 100 people. In both situations the perpetrator refers to some aspect of moral justification for their acts. Who judges the absolute morality of either action ?

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

* That's the funny thing here actually; the people who attack Trump so consistently and vociferously are those who'd usually criticise American military involvement overseas. Now that Trumpo has spoken against it, they're suddenly finding themselves having to defend American military involvement overseas! He does confuse people!

Yes, because he contradicts himself. Contradictions are confusing in nature. Let's have you clear one up straight away: America first? Please, explain how a strong Iran hurts Americans first.

We need to have more weapons of destruction than ever, but the rest of the world? The rest of the world needs to have less weapons of destruction. What this speech boils down to is the US is the world peacemaker by hogging all the weapons. Global interventionism and a weapons hog sounds like more of the same and a lot more of it.

If other countries we choose to be adversaries with aren't fair with us i.e. don't play by our rules? Where did we get the idea that we make the rules for the rest of the world? How can one deduce that means non-interventionism?

[+DieChecker]

As to the whole Iranian nuclear deal.... I thought there was a Non-Proliferation Treaty for a reason? Didn't everyone in the whole world decide that research that could lead to nuclear weapons was BAD? Yet here we have people defending Iran's desires to have these weapons. That they want these weapons shouldn't even be part of the discussion. The number of secret bases and off the books research programs, funded by Iran over the decades is well known and well documented. They can say, "Medical Research", but when they have a long range SCUD already built to carry the exact device that their uncovered researches were developing... I fear they aren't really thinking medical science.

Having nukes to balance a neighbor is not a suitable reason to break the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is actually a stupid reason. Very stupid IMHO.

[+DieChecker]

It has been my experience that the Media has done a fantastic job of taking video and sound segments and making them into Anti-Trump propoganda. When if one reads the entire context of the clip/segment, it almost always is clear that Trump is usually talking about something 90 degrees off what the Media tries to make it out to be.

His remarks about abortion are an excellent example. The assumption was that it was already illegal, and then should those committing the crime be punished. And Trump said, yes, there has to be some kind of punishment. Brian Williams then filled in what he wanted to hear and made a headline out of it. If owning a Ford car was a crime, then if one owned a Ford car, would one not be subject to punishment of some kind.... According to the Media... NO you would not... Ford Motor Company would be responsible for the crime of you owning the car. Stupid.....

[Yamato]

As to the whole Iranian nuclear deal.... I thought there was a Non-Proliferation Treaty for a reason? Didn't everyone in the whole world decide that research that could lead to nuclear weapons was BAD? Yet here we have people defending Iran's desires to have these weapons. That they want these weapons shouldn't even be part of the discussion. The number of secret bases and off the books research programs, funded by Iran over the decades is well known and well documented. They can say, "Medical Research", but when they have a long range SCUD already built to carry the exact device that their uncovered researches were developing... I fear they aren't really thinking medical science.

Having nukes to balance a neighbor is not a suitable reason to break the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is actually a stupid reason. Very stupid IMHO.

Oh the irony my God! Speaking of "medical research" let's pay some attention to the medical research in this country! America first, remember? The most deadly problem in this country by far is pharmaceuticals, a major and totally unnecessary driver of our out of control health care costs. We're 5% of the world's population and we take 90% of the world's drugs. Maybe we're just exceptional? Hodor! Get the better than-ever-before military on em too, let's share and share alike in the great mind rape. Soldiers can't say no, they have to swallow the poison. Basically let millions of people suffer and die, there's trillions more dollars to be made off of their despair. Exact same fraud as the foreign policy itself.

[questionmark]

As to the whole Iranian nuclear deal.... I thought there was a Non-Proliferation Treaty for a reason? Didn't everyone in the whole world decide that research that could lead to nuclear weapons was BAD? Yet here we have people defending Iran's desires to have these weapons. That they want these weapons shouldn't even be part of the discussion. The number of secret bases and off the books research programs, funded by Iran over the decades is well known and well documented. They can say, "Medical Research", but when they have a long range SCUD already built to carry the exact device that their uncovered researches were developing... I fear they aren't really thinking medical science.

Having nukes to balance a neighbor is not a suitable reason to break the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is actually a stupid reason. Very stupid IMHO.

Well, lets think about alternatives... if Iran had gotten another hardliner there would have been no deal, Iran would have happily continued to develop a nuke at full blast. The only way to stop that would have been to invade the place because they wised up from previous Arab attempts that were sooner or later bombed and put the research centers underground... in fact so far underground that our bunker busters would not have done much damage.

While now they might be able to still develop a bomb, having put all those facilities under IAEA control will certainly slow down that effort by decades.

What would have been the alternative? Invade the country ourselves... because sending a proxy would just have given it the technology and research for the nukes. And we know that none of our allies (yes, I said none) in the area can be trusted all having regional supremacy dreams (that can end in bigger dreams)

Additionally, all our allies (excluding our "trusted" friends in Saudi Arabia) were perfectly willing to lift their sanctions if Iran believably shut down its nuke program and disposed of certain critical elements (i.e. the heavy water, that now was sold to Russia... despite the US wanting it). That would have left the US alone leaving no other choice but to forcibly end it as there was no leverage left except military force.

We know how well we manage wars in the area.

[Yamato]

It's stupid almost beyond wild imagination that we need to intervene over Iran's emotions. "Desire". "Want". Where does this teenage girl problem with other peoples emotions come from? Like someone in Iran can't even want a nuclear weapon before we go nutter butter insane over it and sacrifice the life of one braver American, much less pay one dollar or dime of tax money. Some nameless one in Iran, built on another pack of lies exactly like the one that started the war in Iraq.

[Leonardo]

Yes, exactly. That "image" is largely one as a bully. Is that really the image they want? Or rather, the leaders might well want it, but would it really benefit the people as a whole?

I know Leo would be keen to attack Trumpo at every opportunity, but you're really speaking out in support of American militarism here?

No, I'm not speaking in support of it, I am saying that militarism* (and the associated spending on programs in foreign nations) is a large part of the powerful image/prestige the US has on the international scene. The two are irrevocably intertwined and if Trump wants to cut that back he will considerably weaken the US's ability to dominate diplomatically. The "strong US" he talks about will only be perceived to be strong within the US, and once the US "weakens" it's international image then many other situations detrimental to the US's power as a nation may develop - for example, the dropping of the dollar as the major currency for international trade.

The policy Trump espouses weakens America, it doesn't strengthen it.

*Here I am not speaking of the US's involvement in overseas conflicts, but the money it spends on military programs in foreign nations such as the European missile shield, military bases overseas, etc. That is what Trump is talking about cutting back on.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Leonardo