Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy
91 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Donald Trump outlined an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday, telling The Washington Post's editorial board that he questions the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has formed the backbone of Western security policies since the Cold War.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Speaking ahead of a major address on foreign policy later Monday in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Trump said he advocates an aggressive U.S. posture in the world with a light footprint. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump said the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore," Trump said. "I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country."
He added: "I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’re blown up. We build another one, we get blown up. We rebuild it three times and yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn. We have no money for education because we can’t build in our own country. At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?' So, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."
[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/"]Source[/URL]
[URL="https://archive.is/MlIit"]Archive if you get blocked by Pay Wall. Since Washington Post paywalls you sometimes.[/URL] (Not sure if that breaks any rules or not, I'll remove it if it does)
Slowly turning into a Democrat, I see.
What a genius.
Sell his extreme right wing rhetoric to the point his rabid supporters eat it all up and continue to support him as he slowly turns back to the left. Meanwhile Hillary is all for invading Iran if need be.
Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that he's just [U]saying[/U] this. While I can appreciate the notion of being flexible, I don't really buy it from Trump. Call it a gut feeling, but I still can't trust this guy with the throne.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49978984]What a genius.
Sell his extreme right wing rhetoric to the point his rabid supporters eat it all up and continue to support him as he slowly turns back to the left. Meanwhile Hillary is all for invading Iran if need be.[/QUOTE]
no this is traditional right wing isolationism. Its totally fine when bush invades somewhere, but Obama wanting to go in and clean up the mess, or stop some of the most serious threats in mainland europe, suddenly he's an imperialist
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49978984]What a genius.
Sell his extreme right wing rhetoric to the point his rabid supporters eat it all up and continue to support him as he slowly turns back to the left. Meanwhile Hillary is all for invading Iran if need be.[/QUOTE]
Trump was always saying this shit and he was always a non-interventionist
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49979060]Trump was always saying this shit and he was always a non-interventionist[/QUOTE]
But what about that time he said he would destroy ISIS and take their natural resources.
And by "their" i mean the resources of the countries who's sovereignty ISIS is currently occupying.
I honestly feel like Trump's going to do a huge switch if he gets elected. I'm willing to bet he doesn't even believe in a smidgen of the retarded shit he says.
There is a good argument to be made as to why the United States is subsidizing defense for so many countries in NATO but I don't think the answer is to pull out without a plan. NATO is an incredibly successful defense coalition and it's critical that it remains ready for aggression.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49979114]But what about that time he said he would destroy ISIS and take their natural resources.
And by "their" i mean the resources of the countries who's sovereignty ISIS is currently occupying.[/QUOTE]
We essentially built ISIS by creating an environment where they could grow, throwing weapons into the fire helped them as well. Not sure what Sander's stance on ISIS is (iirc it was to make a coalition of Muslim countries to go to beat on it instead of a US-European/NATO coalition going to deal with it), but I think we have to do at least something, not doing anything would be totally irresponsible.
Honestly, it is about time to get rid of NATO. Europe should be responsible for its own affairs, and likewise we should be responsible for our own as well.
I'd much prefer if my country went back to being isolationist and minding it's own damn business with a smaller military.
Not very different from Sander's stance on foreign policy actually...
[QUOTE=Chaitin;49979163]Not very different from Sander's stance on foreign policy actually...[/QUOTE]
They're a lot more similar on some pretty key issues than most people are willing to admit.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49979162]I'd much prefer if my country went back to being isolationist and minding it's own damn business with a smaller military.[/QUOTE]
Which in turn lead us to jumping into WWII and the formation of NATO to begin with
[QUOTE=Durandal;49979148]We essentially built ISIS by creating an environment where they could grow, throwing weapons into the fire helped them as well. Not sure what Sander's stance on ISIS is (iirc it was to make a coalition of Muslim countries to go to beat on it instead of a US-European/NATO coalition going to deal with it), but I think we have to do at least something, not doing anything would be totally irresponsible.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I think we should go further in our fight against ISIS. Obama's plan to arm "moderate rebels" was dumb. I'm just pointing out that Trump wasn't "always an non-interventionalist".
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49979162]Honestly, it is about time to get rid of NATO. Europe should be responsible for its own affairs, and likewise we should be responsible for our own as well.
I'd much prefer if my country went back to being isolationist and minding it's own damn business with a smaller military.[/QUOTE]
European countries should definitely be committing more toward NATO and their individual defense but it's really too late to just renege on all of our foreign military obligations. A smaller, but more mobile and better trained military is a natural step forward but he Navy is aoready starting to feel the pains of a constrained budget at a time when it is expected to operate 24/7 around the world. I just don't see isolationism/non-interventionalism being a realistic or practical stance in todays world.
What is it with people wanting rid of Europe/NATO etc?
Does nobody understand it's these alliances that allow us to have the stability we have now in the modern world?
sanders if clinton doesn't get the nomination
trump if she does
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49979172]They're a lot more similar on some pretty key issues than most people are willing to admit.[/QUOTE]
Such as? They have similar views on foreign policy contrasting with Clinton and respective Republicans but this seems to be a total 180 on what he has said during the campaign.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49979060]Trump was always saying this shit and he was always a non-interventionist[/QUOTE]
Guess he just wanted to kill their families and take their oil in a metaphorical way?
[QUOTE]Guess he just wanted to kill their families and take their oil in a metaphorical way?[/QUOTE]
Or maybe Trump want to kill the head of ISIS and take their oil by means of mental power?
[QUOTE=Shadow801;49979194]What is it with people wanting rid of Europe/NATO etc?
Does nobody understand it's these alliances that allow us to have the stability we have now in the modern world?[/QUOTE]
At the cost of the US. If Europe doesn't want to get invaded by Russia, maybe Europe should primarily be footing the bill for their own defence.
Mind, I don't think the US should go full isolationism. Having a strong military that alone is capable of defending against China and Russia is important, and the US will always have to be the counterweight in ASIA, but Europe is wealthy enough to fund their own defense.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49979193]I agree. I think we should go further in our fight against ISIS. Obama's plan to arm "moderate rebels" was dumb. I'm just pointing out that Trump wasn't "always an non-interventionalist".
European countries should definitely be committing more toward NATO and their individual defense but it's really too late to just renege on all of our foreign military obligations. A smaller, but more mobile and better trained military is a natural step forward but he Navy is aoready starting to feel the pains of a constrained budget at a time when it is expected to operate 24/7 around the world. I just don't see isolationism/non-interventionalism being a realistic or practical stance in todays world.[/QUOTE]
A possible solution would be to slowly lower funding for allies down to a certain minimum and have them raise their own defense funding at the same time.
The money we save, how ever little, can be used towards our own healthcare and education expenses.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49979280]At the cost of the US. If Europe doesn't want to get invaded by Russia, maybe Europe should primarily be footing the bill for their own defence.
Mind, I don't think the US should go full isolationism. Having a strong military that alone is capable of defending against China and Russia is important, and the US will always have to be the counterweight in ASIA, but Europe is wealthy enough to fund their own defense.[/QUOTE]
Just like how poland should have footed their own defence bill?
I see little reason that we should continue to pay for the defense of Europe when we have internal problems to worry about, and when most EU states could easily afford to defend themselves.
[QUOTE=cody8295;49979195]sanders if clinton doesn't get the nomination
trump if she does[/QUOTE]
How about not voting for a Communist and not voting for literally fucking Satan? (Clinton) No matter who gets the Democrapic nomination I'm sure as hell not abandoning my American duty to preserve the country and sure as hell not voting for the modern Dems. This is not 1960 when they were in their prime of "Question Government, question authority" movement, Dems for the past 30 years have shown their true colors. Racist, Hateful, Anti-American, lying about history (Party switch, what a fucking joke) It's like people don't want to learn the history of the Democratic party, they just want it all swept under the rug. They've been trying to turn us into Europe. Guess what, America was not made to change, it was made to be FREE.
Trump is someone who is saying what's needing to be said and what's really needing to be done. If he wasn't running I'd have to waste a vote on Kasich because Cruz sabotages so many voting polls it's pathetic, but even as much as I somewhat like Kasich he's still obeying his masters like a good bitch and can be bought at the drop of a hat, Trump can not be bought and that is why the enslaved world is shitting themselves, NWO can not buy him. I don't want to see NATO gone. I want to see NATO AND the U.N. gone.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;49979194]What is it with people wanting rid of Europe/NATO etc?
Does nobody understand it's these alliances that allow us to have the stability we have now in the modern world?[/QUOTE]
A lot of people can't grasp the concept of globalization
[QUOTE=Paxton;49979354]How about not voting for a Communist and not voting for literally fucking Satan? (Clinton) No matter who gets the Democrapic nomination I'm sure as hell not abandoning my American duty to preserve the country and sure as hell not voting for the modern Dems. This is not 1960 when they were in their prime of "Question Government, question authority" movement, Dems for the past 30 years have shown their true colors. Racist, Hateful, Anti-American, lying about history (Party switch, what a fucking joke) It's like people don't want to learn the history of the Democratic party, they just want it all swept under the rug. They've been trying to turn us into Europe. Guess what, America was not made to change, it was made to be FREE.
Trump is someone who is saying what's needing to be said and what's really needing to be done. If he wasn't running I'd have to waste a vote on Kasich because Cruz sabotages so many voting polls it's pathetic, but even as much as I somewhat like Kasich he's still obeying his masters like a good bitch and can be bought at the drop of a hat, Trump can not be bought and that is why the enslaved world is shitting themselves, NWO can not buy him.[/QUOTE]
Calm down [sp] or stop wasting your time trying to bait people [/sp]
[QUOTE=Paxton;49979354]How about not voting for a Communist and not voting for literally fucking Satan? (Clinton) No matter who gets the Democrapic nomination I'm sure as hell not abandoning my American duty to preserve the country and sure as hell not voting for the modern Dems. This is not 1960 when they were in their prime of "Question Government, question authority" movement, Dems for the past 30 years have shown their true colors. Racist, Hateful, Anti-American, lying about history (Party switch, what a fucking joke) It's like people don't want to learn the history of the Democratic party, they just want it all swept under the rug. They've been trying to turn us into Europe. Guess what, America was not made to change, it was made to be FREE.
[/QUOTE]
This is satire right
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49978984]What a genius.
Sell his extreme right wing rhetoric to the point his rabid supporters eat it all up and continue to support him as he slowly turns back to the left. Meanwhile Hillary is all for invading Iran if need be.[/QUOTE]
The "extreme right wing" absolutely despise Trump. His appeal is to the ignorant moderates who don't have any foundational ideology.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49979219]Guess he just wanted to kill their families and take their oil in a metaphorical way?[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell, by "take the oil" (in regards to ISIS) Trump means deny ISIS oil revenue.
[quote]Trump, July 8: I would take away their wealth. I would take away the oil. What you should be doing now is taking away the oil.
Cooper: What does that mean?
Trump: Bomb them.[/quote]
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-on-bombing-isis-oil-fields/[/url]
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/259500-trumps-isis-plan-take-the-oil[/url]
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trump-foreign-policy-middle-east-oil[/url]
Somewhat confusing because he also wanted the US to stay and seize the oil in Iraq instead of pulling out back then.
Trump has wishwashed on the killing their families thing it seems: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.