Trump's foreign policy for America

[DieChecker 26,953]

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.

So are you saying the alternatives were 1) Obama's negotiated deal, or 2) Total war with Iran? There were no third choices? No other options?

Anyway, I don't disagree with you. My problem is with those who say Iran Should have a bomb. Do you want Iran to have an A-bomb/nuke?

Also what is to stop them from building more secret bases and simply putting up mock ups to be examined? Nothing. We allow funds, and materials in, and if those just happen to "disappear", is the UN going to then go looking for those materials? What if they are not found?

[questionmark 11,371]

So are you saying the alternatives were 1) Obama's negotiated deal, or 2) Total war with Iran? There were no third choices? No other options?

Could you point out one? And, it was not Obama's negotiated deal. The secret of the Vienna talks is that the proposals of the US and Iran were going nowhere until the likes of Steinmeier brokered a compromise between both positions... that had one party not accepted it would have been the end of the talks and sanctions anyway with a running nuke program.

So, yes there was a 3d option, Iran gets to keep its nuke program and most of the rest of the world Would just ignore the sanctions that did not work to start with.

[DieChecker 26,953]

Could you point out one? And, it was not Obama's negotiated deal. The secret of the Vienna talks is that the proposals of the US and Iran were going nowhere until the likes of Steinmeier brokered a compromise between both positions... that had one party not accepted it would have been the end of the talks and sanctions anyway with a running nuke program.

So, yes there was a 3d option, Iran gets to keep its nuke program and most of the rest of the world Would just ignore the sanctions that did not work to start with.

Let us then hope that Iran is dealing in good faith and not in bad faith, like they have in nearly every single nuclear/research related treaty they've signed in the last 30 years.

Let us HOPE that they do not use the funds to support terrorism, and HOPE that they do not build even one secret research facility, and HOPE that they delete all their breakout bomb research and destroy their already built technology.

[questionmark 11,371]

Let us then hope that Iran is dealing in good faith and not in bad faith, like they have in nearly every single nuclear/research related treaty they've signed in the last 30 years.

Let us HOPE that they do not use the funds to support terrorism, and HOPE that they do not build even one secret research facility, and HOPE that they delete all their breakout bomb research and destroy their already built technology.

The end result would be -- if those hopes fail -- the same as without deal. So at least we got cheap gas out of it.

[ellapenella 5,735]

or to the contrary of others I know an empty word shell when I hear it. But I give you this, he sure used a lot of words to say what he has been saying the whole time in one sentence. 40 minutes worth to be exact.

yeah, he's all about putting America first. I see why you hate him.

[ellapenella 5,735]

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.

So the deal made with Iran for instance, do they comply with the same rules that others do?

[questionmark 11,371]

yeah, he's all about putting America first. I see why you hate him.

To put America first you refrain from doing what hurts America... like p***ing off people America needs. But don't worry, as soon as you get Prezz Trump he either learns or we will be another step closer to the 3d world.

[Leonardo 10,410]

So the deal made with Iran for instance, do they comply with the same rules that others do?

In that deal Iran is obliged to co-operate with the IAEA and allow that body greater (if not total) access to it's nuclear sites. This is the same as all other nations with nuclear programs, except the obvious examples such as North Korea and Israel (yes, Iran is now more "nuclear-compliant" than Israel.) So, yes, they do now comply with the same rules.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Leonardo

[ellapenella 5,735]

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.

let's see , his realtor school & people who wanted out of it's expense < compared to Hillery's foreign policy track record. I don't know but when I think about it her foreign policy track records are far more horrific then a couple of people wanting out of payments they signed up for in his realtor school.

Who in their right mind would have the audacity to compare the realtor school to her foreign policy track record as if they're anything alike?

[questionmark 11,371]

let's see , his realtor school & people who wanted out of it's expense < compared to Hillery's foreign policy track record. I don't know but when I think about it her foreign policy track records are far more horrific then a couple of people wanting out of payments they signed up for in his realtor school.

Who in their right mind would have the audacity to compare the realtor school to her foreign policy track record as if they're anything alike?

Wait until he has to testify in his own fraud case (Trump University)... we will see who looks better then.

[ellapenella 5,735]

In that deal Iran is obliged to co-operate with the IAEA and allow that body greater (if not total) access to it's nuclear sites. This is the same as all other nations with nuclear programs, except the obvious examples such as North Korea and Israel (yes, Iran is now more "nuclear-compliant" than Israel.) So, yes, they do now comply with the same rules.

Is that so? there's no "side deal" where Iran pretty much gets to do their own inspection?...

[ellapenella 5,735]

Wait until he has to testify in his own fraud case (Trump University)... we will see who looks better then.

you're not funny. you know she's already gotten away with what she's gotten away with but, we all answer to God, one day.

[questionmark 11,371]

you're not funny. you know she's already gotten away with what she's gotten away with but, we all answer to God, one day.

I am not trying to be funny. And it could be that before she answers to anybody she will haunt us as president. And partly due to the Trump fans.

[Leonardo 10,410]

Is that so? there's no "side deal" where Iran pretty much gets to do their own inspection?...

Every nation on the planet with an IAEA-compliant nuclear energy program "does their own inspections". They report this to the IAEA who then undertake checks to ensure those nations aren't "fibbing".

This "side-deal" that Obama's detractors made so much of grants Iran no more latitude in these inspections than any other nation has, so yes - they are still using the same rules.

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

I am not trying to be funny. And it could be that before she answers to anybody she will haunt us as president. And partly due to the Trump fans.

*raised eyebrow emoticon* They should have devoted their energy promoting some more reasonable candidate that would've been able to better challenge Clitnon? Were they any?

[questionmark 11,371]

*raised eyebrow emoticon* They should have devoted their energy promoting some more reasonable candidate that would've been able to better challenge Clitnon? Were they any?

Yes, a few. Not the best you can imagine but good enough to challenge Clinton and actually win. We just were seeing the radicals (and the radicals got voted for mostly).

[RavenHawk 11,490]

Which was spoken like a fifth grader,

Only so that those like you can understand. I guess he failed. But then the lost were not his target audience.

from a teleprompted speech that seems like it was written by five different people.

What’s wrong with that? People were complaining that he wouldn’t use a teleprompter. You’re not interested in hearing what he has to say.

None of them agreed.

He probably does have a staff of writers. What he said was all Trump. There was nothing new from what he’s said before. Yes, it does agree. You have to listen to what he says. Not what you want him to say.

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

That was the point of the speech. To expand on what he meant by “America First”. People were critical of what he meant by that. He expressed himself very well. It all made sense. He broke it down into 5 points (resources, allies, dependability, respect, foreign policy) of a top level structure for his philosophy. He established the goal.

[ellapenella 5,735]

An article from John Baun --- says that it didn't take long for German Foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier to react to Donald Trumps America first rhetoric. Stienmeier said " The world security architect has changed and it is no longer based on two pillars alone. It can not be conducted unilaterally "No American President can get around this change in the international security architecture".

[ellapenella 5,735]

get around what change?

[ellapenella 5,735]

I know he's wheeled and dealed with them but , it seems like they go against him for all the wrong reasons, it make no sense. you would think they would be supportive of the things he's been addressing but they're not, it seems like he's in the way of something. something weird is going on.

[aztek 24,862]

isn't it obvious? globalism or not he is stepping on many toes.

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

I'd quite like to be ruled by a New World Order dictator, particularly if they rule from a cool pyramid like the one depicted in that video.

[ellapenella 5,735]

To put America first you refrain from doing what hurts America... like p***ing off people America needs. But don't worry, as soon as you get Prezz Trump he either learns or we will be another step closer to the 3d world.

excuse you but if people are going to continue to trade unfairly with us and take advantage of us we don't need them. sheesh...how were you taught. maybe that's what people like about Donald Trump,he's old school Americana at heart.

[ellapenella 5,735]

isn't it obvious? globalism or not he is stepping on many toes.

the people who were trusted weren't ever suppose to allow this sort of thing to happen , but it is, isn't it? what are we all really gonna do to stop it? a force like our own military if they turned on us.

ETA - I'm not saying that would ever happen but when we trust our freedom to a government of people to rule over and make decisions for us this is what we get.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Ellapennella

[Gromdor 13,834]

The thing about Trumps foreign policy that confused me was that he stated that Japan and South Korea should pay up or maybe develop their own nuclear weapons program and then he goes off and says that Iran can't have any.

But part of the reason why Japan can't have it's own standing army or nukes is because they tried to take over the world a few years back with that Hitler guy and after we beat them we specified in the peace treaty that we would take care of any military problems in the future and that they were forbidden to have a standing army.

Does Trump just want to ditch that peace treaty? He seems to want to dump all of our trade treaties as well. If we do that, is there a point for any country to have any sort of treaties with us at all? If a country doesn't keep its word, then what's the point of having agreements with it at all. Might as well do what you want.