Trump on foreign policy

[fskimospy]

How do you know it made it better? We can only look at the results of what we did and say for certain what happened. Toppling the regime of Libya created a huge mess. Our hands directly lead to this toppling. Blood is on our hands. This isnt difficult to understand.

I don't know it made it better, that's my whole point.

The country was already engulfed in a civil war. Intervention was likely with or without our involvement. Saying that the US's intervention caused this situation that would not have otherwise happened is a dubious proposition.

Chaos was limited and being more limited by the day. If Benghazi fell the rebels would had run out of places to fight from. The regime would had recaptured and secured a major city in the East. More stability would had been brought to the country. We turned them back at the gates and it has been a humanitarian disaster since.

Run out of places to fight from? Are you joking? This is baseless theorizing. I mean I guess when we took all the cities in Iraq and Afghanistan the insirgencies gave up because they didn't have anywhere to fight from, right?

I am perfectly willing to accept that intervention in Libya might have been a bad idea, but the idea that the civil war was just about to end and we screwed it all up is dubious at best.

Is this a serious question? ISIS vs whatever coalition of "moderate" rebels we are supplying fighting for the power vacuum left by the regime? Do you really believe Syria would be in a better place if the Syrian regime was removed and filled by these two factions?

This is a deadly serious question. You appear to have stated that a three way civil war is preferable to having a non-Assad regime controlling all of Syria. I'm asking why you consider the one of the largest humanitarian catastrophes in modern times to be a preferable outcome.

It seems very odd to paint Libya as a humanitarian catastrophe and a great example of why not to intervene while also using the far worse humanitarian catastrophe in Syria as an example of why not intervening is good.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nearly 10 years ago.

Of course. Back when it mattered. Back when we were in the middle of spending trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generally destabilizing the Middle East. Back when we needed more smart. principled voices to stand up and say, "The emperor has no clothes."

It's easy to sober up later, look back, and realize what a mistake you made.

Right but the comparison revolves around our costs. The results for both nations has been an epic disaster. Just because we shit on 6.5 million people instead of 37 million doesnt make our policy any better for the 6.5 million. The point is to learn from our mistakes, not keep repeating them.

Again, Eski already covered this.

 

[Genx87]

I don't know it made it better, that's my whole point.

The country was already engulfed in a civil war. Intervention was likely with or without our involvement. Saying that the US's intervention caused this situation that would not have otherwise happened is a dubious proposition.

I dont care if Europe would had intervened. If they want to have blood on their hands. That is their problem. And I will say our intervention directly lead to what we have today. Our intervention took out the ability of Qudaffis regime to fight a rebellion.

Run out of places to fight from? Are you joking? This is baseless theorizing. I mean I guess when we took all the cities in Iraq and Afghanistan the insirgencies gave up because they didn't have anywhere to fight from, right?

I see your point. But I think the rebels knew they were in trouble if Benghazi fell. Which is why they pressed for our intervention when it became obvious they were going to be pushed out of the city. So while I agree with you taking the city wouldnt necessarily stop the fight. It would had severely hurt their ability to fight the regime.

This is a deadly serious question. You appear to have stated that a three way civil war is preferable to having a non-Assad regime controlling all of Syria. I'm asking why you consider the one of the largest humanitarian catastrophes in modern times to be a preferable outcome.

That isnt what I said or meant to imply. I would in this scenario find it preferable for the regime to control all territory.

It seems very odd to paint Libya as a humanitarian catastrophe and a great example of why not to intervene while also using the far worse humanitarian catastrophe in Syria as an example of why not intervening is good.

Dont forget Iraq. Anyways, we have intervened by supplying arms to "moderate" rebels. This has prolonged the fight. If we toppled the Assad regime completely. Worse chaos would happen in the fight between ISIS and these groups.

 

[Genx87]

Of course. Back when it mattered. Back when we were in the middle of spending trillions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generally destabilizing the Middle East. Back when we needed more smart. principled voices to stand up and say, "The emperor has no clothes."

It's easy to sober up later, look back, and realize what a mistake you made.

What is wrong with realizing what a mistake a position is? Should we continue to stick to poor decisions because that is what we always have done? Seems like a weird position to take. What does it matter if I grew up 10 years ago and realized what a shitstorm Iraq created? Been a pretty vocal critic of the Iraqi invasion for several years. With each passing year it gets more critical.

 

[fskimospy]

I dont care if Europe would had intervened. If they want to have blood on their hands. That is their problem. And I will say our intervention directly lead to what we have today. Our intervention took out the ability of Qudaffis regime to fight a rebellion.

I agree that our intervention shaped what we have today and we are somewhat responsible for the results. I don't agree that things in Libya would have been better had we chosen not to help France and the UK.

I see your point. But I think the rebels knew they were in trouble if Benghazi fell. Which is why they pressed for our intervention when it became obvious they were going to be pushed out of the city. So while I agree with you taking the city wouldnt necessarily stop the fight. It would had severely hurt their ability to fight the regime.

That isnt what I said or meant to imply. I would in this scenario find it preferable for the regime to control all territory.

Dont forget Iraq. Anyways, we have intervened by supplying arms to "moderate" rebels. This has prolonged the fight. If we toppled the Assad regime completely. Worse chaos would happen in the fight between ISIS and these groups.

We've supplied some arms sure, but if anything it appears that the Assad regime would be losing without foreign intervention, not the other way around. As for it being better if Assad controlled the whole country that's probably true, but I see no plausible path for the regime to do that (at least from a military standpoint).

 

[Bowfinger]

What is wrong with realizing what a mistake a position is? Should we continue to stick to poor decisions because that is what we always have done? Seems like a weird position to take. What does it matter if I grew up 10 years ago and realized what a shitstorm Iraq created? Been a pretty vocal critic of the Iraqi invasion for several years. With each passing year it gets more critical.

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Indeed, my respect for you has increased as I noticed your changing position. My point is that our actions in Libya and Iraq are not even close to equivalent, in spite of the need of (former) Bush apologists to find some way to make Obama just as bad as Bush. The comparison fails hard. I'm not sure how else to express this.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Like you said, case in point. Translation, when a D does something it's automatically right. There was no need to topple the government in Egypt or Libya - period.

Right, because we lost thousands of American soldiers, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and blew a couple trillion dollars in Libya, just like Iraq.

Bu bu Libya costed a lot less. So it is ok to topple govts and create chaos if it costs us very little.

 

[Bowfinger]

Like you said, case in point. Translation, when a D does something it's automatically right. There was no need to topple the government in Egypt or Libya - period.

Nice straw man. Pity it bears no resemblance to what I said.

Look, I get that you Bush apologists desperately need to believe that Obama is just as bad as your total failure of a POTUS. Reality just doesn't support your craving, however. Bush and his dishonest invasion of Iraq is a hall of fame fiasco, an epic cluster-fsck that future historians will cite again and again as a perfect example of doing it wrong. Obama has plenty of his own failures, but nothing anywhere close to Iraq. That's reality. All you can do now is live with that sad fact, and maybe be a bit more discriminating in who you vote for in the future.

 

[Genx87]

There's nothing wrong with it at all. Indeed, my respect for you has increased as I noticed your changing position. My point is that our actions in Libya and Iraq are not even close to equivalent, in spite of the need of (former) Bush apologists to find some way to make Obama just as bad as Bush. The comparison fails hard. I'm not sure how else to express this.

Well maybe it would help if mentioning I am not trying to convince anybody both are equal in terms of costs or misery. And I am not trying to say Obama is as bad as Bush in comparing these two actions. But both policies ended up disasters.

My hope is to convince people to stop getting involved in toppling regimes all together. Look at the candidates and what they are saying. Right now both of these candidates are interventionists. Policies like we have had for decades that end in disaster will continue for the next 4 years under Drumpf or Hillary.

 

[FerrelGeek]

You'll never convince them. Partisan loyalty uber alles.

Your first mistake is thinking I am a Bush apologist. Your second mistake is again comparing the costs between the two disasters in foreign policy as if that is the measure historians and anybody should look back and say "well Libya didnt cost us much so it was good policy". Clinton in one of the first debates actually said it was a cheap foreign policy adventure. Totally disregarding the misery the power vaccum she help create that has been filled with the likes of AQ and ISIS on the people of that country.

How do you know it made it better? We can only look at the results of what we did and say for certain what happened. Toppling the regime of Libya created a huge mess. Our hands directly lead to this toppling. Blood is on our hands. This isnt difficult to understand.

Chaos was limited and being more limited by the day. If Benghazi fell the rebels would had run out of places to fight from. The regime would had recaptured and secured a major city in the East. More stability would had been brought to the country. We turned them back at the gates and it has been a humanitarian disaster since.

Is this a serious question? ISIS vs whatever coalition of "moderate" rebels we are supplying fighting for the power vacuum left by the regime? Do you really believe Syria would be in a better place if the Syrian regime was removed and filled by these two factions?

Nearly 10 years ago.

Right but the comparison revolves around our costs. The results for both nations has been an epic disaster. Just because we shit on 6.5 million people instead of 37 million doesnt make our policy any better for the 6.5 million. The point is to learn from our mistakes, not keep repeating them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well maybe it would help if mentioning I am not trying to convince anybody both are equal in terms of costs or misery. And I am not trying to say Obama is as bad as Bush in comparing these two actions. But both policies ended up disasters.

Sure, that's fair. Nor am I trying to convince anyone our actions in Libya were great.

Note my original comment was directed at FerrelGeek. Based on his posting history, I don't think his thinking is nearly so reasoned.

My hope is to convince people to stop getting involved in toppling regimes all together. Look at the candidates and what they are saying. Right now both of these candidates are interventionists. Policies like we have had for decades that end in disaster will continue for the next 4 years under Drumpf or Hillary.

I absolutely agree. In another thread I mentioned that this was probably the single biggest reason to support Sanders. Of all the mainstream candidates, he alone seems least eager to start more wars in the Middle East.

 

[Bowfinger]

You'll never convince them. Partisan loyalty uber alles.

Pity you're limited to reading only those things that reinforce your bubble. You'd be so much better informed, and so much more reasoned if you considered both sides of a discussion.

 

[FrankRamiro]

You are so uniformed.....

Trump's policy is to get out of the endless wars!

Hell, even if he continued it, that's still better than Hillary expanding it! At least, it's a rep making stupid decisions!

Don't tire yourself explaining that Trumps is the only one that does't want these ridiculous wars that the Clinton's, Bush's, Obama's promoted,and why these are involved, i'll tell you why.These wars have been nothing but profits with millions of dollars for their pockets since these corporations making weapons some of these Politicians have special interest on these corporations.
So no war means no profit.
So asks these supporters of the Clinton's if they want to continue to ask moneys to the Chinese to fund these wars and get some people richer and richer ,and send Americans to the poverty existing in the third world?

 

[Vic]

So Benghazi is great and all, but I'm still a little unclear as to how exactly Trump is going to save us money by not being the world's police without cutting military spending. Any Trumper care to explain how we're going to have our cake and eat it too?

 

[Subyman]

So Benghazi is great and all, but I'm still a little unclear as to how exactly Trump is going to save us money by not being the world's police without cutting military spending. Any Trumper care to explain how we're going to have our cake and eat it too?

Because everyone is going to pay us protection money.

 

[Vic]

Because everyone is going to pay us protection money.

So he's suggesting that we become a global empire that demands tribute from vassal states? Seriously? Has anyone explained to the Donald that this goes against the very heart of the Republican principles, like no taxation without representation, that this country was founded upon?

 

[Zor Prime]

So he's suggesting that we become a global empire that demands tribute from vassal states? Seriously? Has anyone explained to the Donald that this goes against the very heart of the Republican principles, like no taxation without representation, that this country was founded upon?

I think the idea is to get countries like Japan, South Korea and so on to pay us for our military presence, from what I gathered by what he's said. If they don't want to pay for the services, go home.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think the idea is to get countries like Japan, South Korea and so on to pay us for our military presence, from what I gathered by what he's said. If they don't want to pay for the services, go home.

The US likes having those bases, as they give more ability to project force.
I believe usually the US is not paying significant $ to lease the land that the bases are on.
Also, having the forces 100% under US control and without foreign obligations means that they can come home if the shit really hits the fan.

It is expensive to have a worldwide military force, but, the US has its reasons for making sure its always got its hand in every pie.

Selling our military out as some kind of international guns for hire operation is really not in our best interests.

 

[Genx87]

I think the idea is to get countries like Japan, South Korea and so on to pay us for our military presence, from what I gathered by what he's said. If they don't want to pay for the services, go home.

That is what it sounds like. Though I wouldnt expect him to be able to get it done within even 8 years. It would take time for these countries to increase military spending to make up for our lack of presence. But when you think about it. Drumpf does have a case. Germany, Japan, South Korea, England, Italy. These are some of the worlds largest economies. Why should they get away with having the US tax payer paying their security bill? Germany spends 1.2%, Japan spends 1% of their GDP on defense.

Yes we do get the benefit of being able to project offensive force around the world. But is that something we want our Department of Defense doing?

 

[Moonbeam]

Who does he talk to about foreign policy, considering he doesn't seem to know a lot?



http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...s/2016/03/trump-foreign-policy-adviser-220853

I cannot thank Republicans enough for this idiot.

The LBD in action, the inability to understand that if somebody looks like an idiot to a liberal, it's a very good indication they will win. There are more than one kind of idiocy. We were supposed to know from kindergarten on that the 98 pound brainiac who plays in the sandbox gets sand thrown in his face. Another form of idiocy is doing the sane thing over and over expecting different results.

Not that Hillary has no chance. Millions of voters will place race and gender before returning democracy from the hands of the wealthy to the people, creating the farce, in that case, that anything could ever change. Personally I see no hope without a real political revolution and the destruction of the power of the two parties.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Senator Jeff Sessions is Trump's adviser.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-names-jeff-sessions-chairman/2016/03/16/id/719484/

what an awesome choice!! a douchebag of monumental stature.
From wiki:
Economic issues[edit]
Sessions voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, and said he would vote to make them permanent if given the chance.[32]

In 2006, Sessions received the "Guardian of Small Business” award from the National Federation of Independent Business.

He voted for an amendment to the 2008 budget resolution, offered by Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, which would have placed a one-year moratorium on the practice of earmarking.

Sessions was one of 25 senators to vote against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the bank bailout), arguing that it "undermines our heritage of law and order, and is an affront to the principle of separation of powers."[33]

Sessions opposed the $837 billion stimulus bill, calling it "the largest spending bill in the history of the republic."[34] He also expressed skepticism about the $447 billion jobs bill recently proposed by President Obama, and disputed the notion that the bill would be paid for and not add to the national debt.[35]

Social issues[edit]
Sessions is pro-life and was one of 37 Senators to vote against funding for embryonic stem cell research.[36]

Sessions has been an opponent of same-sex marriage and has earned a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign, the United States' largest LGBT advocacy group.[37] He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which added acts of bias-motivated violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crimes law,[38] Sessions voted in favor of advancing the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006.[38] Sessions voted against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.[39]

Sessions has also said regarding the appointment of a gay Supreme Court justice, "I do not think that a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified, per se, for the job"[40] but "that would be a big concern that the American people might feel—might feel uneasy about that."[41]

Sessions is against legalizing cannabis for either recreation or medicine. "I’m a big fan of the DEA", he said during a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee.[42] Sessions was "heartbroken" and found "it beyond comprehension" when President Obama claimed that cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Ummmm, why do you think I've been quoting Genx's posts????? It's because I agree with his reasoning!

Sure, that's fair. Nor am I trying to convince anyone our actions in Libya were great.

Note my original comment was directed at FerrelGeek. Based on his posting history, I don't think his thinking is nearly so reasoned.



I absolutely agree. In another thread I mentioned that this was probably the single biggest reason to support Sanders. Of all the mainstream candidates, he alone seems least eager to start more wars in the Middle East.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Pity you're limited to reading only those things that reinforce your bubble. You'd be so much better informed, and so much more reasoned if you considered both sides of a discussion.

I'd be willing to bet you that I'm a lot more open minded than many on here. Haven't you noticed my posts poking the stupid party establishment? Genx had very good responses to your posts, so I saw no point in wasting time rehashing what I would've said.

 

[Vic]

I think the idea is to get countries like Japan, South Korea and so on to pay us for our military presence, from what I gathered by what he's said. If they don't want to pay for the services, go home.

IMO this is one of those ideas that sounds good but really isn't. Japan and South Korea already have their own militaries. They should use and pay for those rather than hiring ours as mercenaries.

 

[sontakke]

Does anybody remember the reason why Germany and Japan are NOT allowed to have a huge military? Do you know which country made sure of that?