Trump Talks Foreign Policy: "We will stop looking to topple regimes." - Polidicks

[quote] President-elect Trump announced a libertarian-like foreign policy at his first "thank you" rally in Cincinnati on Thursday night. While sharing core components of the tasks he will have his administration focus on, Trump rolled out new directions for the State and Defense Departments. "We will destroy ISIS. At the same time, we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks," Trump told attendees at the U.S. Bank Arena. "Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It's time."[/quote] I want to be optimistic that his foreign policy will be good. I think the main problem is that you can't just destroy ISIS and walk out, since a new one will form. Syria can probably be stabilized without much US intervention, but Iraq? Also I watched that thank you rally, and man it wasn't very different from his other rallies lmao. I was expecting him to kind of recount what he had witnessed in the state and talk about his ardent supporters or something. [URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-new-foreign-policy-we-will-stop-looking-to-topple-regimes/article/2608687[/URL]

toppling regimes has lead to nothing but trouble in the last 15 years, but I really don't think he's being honest here, considering all the warhawks he's been appointing lately

[QUOTE]Syria can probably be stabilized without much US intervention, but Iraq? [/QUOTE] I say it is time for America to become isolationist. We have done enough damage. Its time to stop meddling with the affairs of other regions.

Probably the one [I]major[/I] thing I agree with him on. But it won't last. If Islamist politicians take control of the government of Iraq or Iran or any other middle-eastern country, Trump would be the [I]first[/I] person to call for a regime change. We should relax on military interventionism in our foreign policy, absolutely, but let's not pretend that Trump actually believes that the US should just let an organized and sovereign Islamic State handle their own government without intervention.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51462846]You cant suddenly become isolationist after being de facto world police for half a century [editline]2nd December 2016[/editline] And the power vacuum would be crazy, it would bring everything except stability[/QUOTE] This is how America has been behaving since the end of the cold war, [video=youtube;0_lc81P-R8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_lc81P-R8k[/video] America is the monkey. Well armed but barely sentient.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51462866]This is how America has been behaving since the end of the cold war, [video=youtube;0_lc81P-R8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_lc81P-R8k[/video] America is the monkey. Well armed but barely sentient.[/QUOTE] If the quality of this post is an indication of anything, yeah, you're right, America really is barely sentient.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51462800]I say it is time for America to become isolationist. We have done enough damage. Its time to stop meddling with the affairs of other regions.[/QUOTE] How about you fix the damage you've done [b]before[/b] isolating yourselves then. Hell it was this whole, "Fuck it, just pull out" attitude that let ISIS get a strong enough foothold in the Middle-East.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51462866]This is how America has been behaving since the end of the cold war, [video=youtube;0_lc81P-R8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_lc81P-R8k[/video] America is the monkey. Well armed but barely sentient.[/QUOTE] Nice dad meme.

There is nothing wrong with America enforcing it's power on the world, as long as this power is ultimately in the interest of the rest of the democratic world-society. Things like preventing murderous, oppressive regimes from flourishing is noble in itself- But it seems obvious to me that what fucks it up is Americas deep-rooted problem with crony capitalism. The kind of capitalism that makes people want to expand and prolong wars to keep the arms industry profitable, and make up excuses to invade sovereign nations for their resources. I think maybe the most important political next-step is to reduce or remove the influence of money over american politics, nothing will improve if this is not accomplished.

[QUOTE=St33m;51462899] I think maybe the most important political next-step is to reduce or remove the influence of money over american politics, nothing will improve if this is not accomplished.[/QUOTE] sounds like something trump would totally do

[QUOTE=St33m;51462899]There is nothing wrong with America enforcing it's power on the world, as long as this power is ultimately in the interest of the rest of the democratic world-society. Things like preventing murderous, oppressive regimes from flourishing is noble in itself- But it seems obvious to me that what fucks it up is Americas deep-rooted problem with crony capitalism. The kind of capitalism that makes people want to expand and prolong wars to keep the arms industry profitable, and make up excuses to invade sovereign nations for their resources. I think maybe the most important political next-step is to reduce or remove the influence of money over american politics, nothing will improve if this is not accomplished.[/QUOTE] You aren't getting rid of crony capitalism, it's intrinsic to capitalism itself. You can reduce the avenues for it to rear its head though, which is one of the points of becoming less interventionist.

Many people seem to forget how fast the world would go to shit if the US became isolationist.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51463031]Many people seem to forget how fast the world would go to shit if the US became isolationist.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's kind of bankrupting us and in many ways isn't working. The rest of NATO is welcome to chip in Full isolationism is pretty retarded tho

I can't believe how [B]selfish[/B] Trump is!

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51463113]Yeah but it's kind of bankrupting us and in many ways isn't working. Full isolationism is pretty retarded tho[/QUOTE] You don't need to become remotely isolationist to solve the problem of bloated military budgets. Isolationism is more than just pulling back your forward bases, it's an entire economic shift to avoid working with others as much as possible. Something no country can really afford to do today. We're a global community now. Cutting military budgets down can be done without impacting your presence internationally as a trade partner and military force in a number of ways. Anyone genuinely promoting isolationist policy today is frankly insane.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51463130]You don't need to become remotely isolationist to solve the problem of bloated military budgets. Isolationism is more than just pulling back your forward bases, it's an entire economic shift to avoid working with others as much as possible. Something no country can really afford to do today. We're a global community now. Cutting military budgets down can be done without impacting your presence internationally as a trade partner and military force in a number of ways. Anyone genuinely promoting isolationist policy today is frankly insane.[/QUOTE] The two definitions are pretty loaded, which is why I said "full isolationism," but yeah a middle ground is needed.

[QUOTE=gukki;51462920]sounds like something trump would totally do[/QUOTE] I hope you aren't insinuating that i'm a pro-trump guy. Maybe you aren't- but i want it on the record anyway that i'd rather eat my own hands than vote for Trump.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51463130]You don't need to become remotely isolationist to solve the problem of bloated military budgets. Isolationism is more than just pulling back your forward bases, it's an entire economic shift to avoid working with others as much as possible. Something no country can really afford to do today. We're a global community now. Cutting military budgets down can be done without impacting your presence internationally as a trade partner and military force in a number of ways. Anyone genuinely promoting isolationist policy today is frankly insane.[/QUOTE] Can you honestly explain your position and not just make a bold claim and leave? Why does the United States, a nation with no enemies that could possibly threaten it, need to have an international military presence?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463203]Can you honestly explain your position and not just make a bold claim and leave? Why does the United States, a nation with no enemies that could possibly threaten it, need to have an international military presence?[/QUOTE] The US certainly has enemies that pose threats. We also have enemies that pose threats to our allies. As great as the US is, we aren't just some omnipotent force that can wipe away an enemy with the blink of an eye.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463203]Can you honestly explain your position and not just make a bold claim and leave? Why does the United States, a nation with no enemies that could possibly threaten it, need to have an international military presence?[/QUOTE] Just because an enemy can't attack us and vanquish us doesn't mean they don't threaten our interests and allies, to be brief about it. We have a WORLD economy, with many important trading partners. And heck, even holdings in various countries. It also goes beyond trade, we own things in other countries too, like a US business won't be happy if the place they get resources from goes to hell.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463203]a nation with no enemies that could possibly threaten it, need to have an international military presence?[/QUOTE] US, no enemies? You have lots of enemies, they just can't do much because of said military presence.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463203]Can you honestly explain your position and not just make a bold claim and leave? Why does the United States, a nation with no enemies that could possibly threaten it, need to have an international military presence?[/QUOTE] That's a fairly ignorant and uniformed view of the geo political situation that the US faces

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463203]Can you honestly explain your position and not just make a bold claim and leave?[/QUOTE] That's cute, considering I only left for 10 minutes to cook some dinner. Much better than the average Trump supporter tactic of posting "lmao fucking libcucks *insert dumb Trump policy validation here*" *leaves forever* The US has plenty of enemies in the form of the many nations of the Middle East that still feel wronged by you, individually they might not be able to actually attack the USA directly. Together? They may have more of a chance, or at the very least will be a nuisance and economic burden. But even in peace time, having forward bases isn't a bad idea. It still confers you a tactical advantage when the worst happens, and allows you to rapidly respond to less well-off allied nations who may need help due to natural disasters or hostile forces. Letting allies who literally would not be able to defend themselves from larger neighbours with known expansionist policy is a sure fire way to lose those allies.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51462866]This is how America has been behaving since the end of the cold war, America is the monkey. Well armed but barely sentient.[/QUOTE] Since? Go read up on your history. Truman was an ignorant asshole. Easily one of the worst presidents we've ever had. He treated the atomic bomb like America's exclusive trump card and wrote off the possibility of other nations creating them entirely. Hence why he cut off all diplomatic contact with Moscow and effectively baited them at every opportunity. Threatened to nuke Moscow a few times. Casually. And people wonder why the USSR was perpetually militarized.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51463226]The US certainly has enemies that pose threats. We also have enemies that pose threats to our allies. As great as the US is, we aren't just some omnipotent force that can wipe away an enemy with the blink of an eye.[/QUOTE] What is the point of allies if it just results in Americans dying to protect them with no gain in terms of national defense? You're just buying in to our current worldview and assuming that's how we have to continue operating. Europe doesn't threaten us, the Middle East doesn't threaten us, East Asia doesn't threaten us. Fucking around in these regions DOES cause them to be a threat to us. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the one true threat to our nation's existence is Russia's nuclear stockpile. And all we do is keep fucking with and provoking Russia and we have "liberals" who keep talking about how they're some great threat to us geopolitically. Our leaders want to cause the single actual hazard to us in the world to come to the boiling point when we could just be avoiding the problem in the first place. Your idea of what states are supposed to be seems to be that they are massive imperial powers that slap their cocks all over the globe to defend their "interests" (100% of the time that's corporate power) in foreign lands, resulting in the death and destitution of the actual native population. [QUOTE=hexpunK;51463288]The US has plenty of enemies in the form of the many nations of the Middle East that still feel wronged by you, individually they might not be able to actually attack the USA directly. Together? They may have more of a chance, or at the very least will be a nuisance and economic burden.[/quote] This is literally a candyland fantasy idea of the world that you have. Is Assad and the Ayatollah going to row over the ocean and invade the East Coast? I refuse to think you actually believe this, you are coming up with post hoc justifications for the US military presence worldwide because you've made the fundamental neocon buy in. [quote]But even in peace time, having forward bases isn't a bad idea. It still confers you a tactical advantage when the worst happens, and allows you to rapidly respond to less well-off allied nations who may need help due to natural disasters or hostile forces. Letting allies who literally would not be able to defend themselves from larger neighbours with known expansionist policy is a sure fire way to lose those allies.[/QUOTE] Another neocon argument. If you were actually concerned about the conditions of peoples around the earth then you would consider de-escalating constant military tension brought about by the US waging wars all over the place 24/7. Having military bases all over for rapid response to natural disasters hahaha wow is this trolling or what? Could you not possibly think of a better solution? Maybe shovel all the ridiculous military overspending into the Red Cross or the UN or make some other agency that's actually meant to deal with that type of work.

I have seen so much more war mongering coming from the Trump camp than anyone else combined this election, and yet they have the balls to call themselves the peaceful ones. Trump himself is the only candidate that said he wanted to attack the Iranian Navy. I don't believe him for a second, he's broken so many campaign promises his word is worthless.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51463336]This is literally a candyland fantasy idea of the world that you have. Is Assad and the Ayatollah going to row over the ocean and invade the East Coast? I refuse to think you actually believe this, you are coming up with post hoc justifications for the US military presence worldwide because you've made the fundamental neocon buy in. Another neocon argument. If you were actually concerned about the conditions of peoples around the earth then you would consider de-escalating constant military tension brought about by the US waging wars all over the place 24/7. Having military bases all over for rapid response to natural disasters hahaha wow is this trolling or what? Could you not possibly think of a better solution? Maybe shovel all the ridiculous military overspending into the Red Cross or the UN or make some other agency that's actually meant to deal with that type of work.[/QUOTE] They don't have to fucking put boots on ground to be a problem for your country lmao. What the hell kinda of delusion is that? I mean, it would help but straight up invasions of superpowers don't tend to happen. Pretty hard to pull off. What is possible is interfering with your allies, countries you rely on for trade, etc. dealing more of an economic blow or attempting to shift the politics of the region to be more hostile towards your country. (and you will need allies to trade with, considering the GDP of the USA domestic trading alone wouldn't sustain it, let alone provide the supply needed thanks to the devastated manufacturing industries in MEDCs). I'm hardly a neocon though, military de-escalation should be something we all strive for. Unfortunately not everybody seems to agree with that, so having some kind of minimal force present in key locations around the world can help as a defensive measure against aggressive states. Not even necessarily states that are enemies with you, but ones that insist on expanding into allied states and using force against allies. And yeah, using the military as a natural disaster response force is pretty common. Unlike civilian organisations, the military as of now has the supplies and infrastructure to get shit around fast. Should it be that way? Probably not, militaries aren't 100% about fighting (according to people who get hyper defensive when you mention they joined a job that is just fighting) there's a lot of solid tacticians working in them after all, so organising the logistics of disaster response is feasible. If at all possible, diverting funds to humanitarian groups would be beneficial, preferable for certain. But it's still not an excuse to put yourself at a disadvantage if the worst does come to fruition.

i mean we topped a regieme for saddam, then [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War"]that[/URL] happened did shit for osama bin laden, then [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks"]THAT[/URL] happened did shit for syrian peeps, then ISIS happened we just need to like, step back a bit and take a break before we somehow turn on literal nazis 2.0.

[QUOTE=St33m;51463167]I hope you aren't insinuating that i'm a pro-trump guy. Maybe you aren't- but i want it on the record anyway that i'd rather eat my own hands than vote for Trump.[/QUOTE] Oh not at all. Just saying that trump might not be the #1 canditate for separating making a profit from politics.

[QUOTE=Wii60;51463399]i mean we topped a regieme for saddam, then [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War"]that[/URL] happened did shit for osama bin laden, then [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks"]THAT[/URL] happened did shit for syrian peeps, then ISIS happened we just need to like, step back a bit and take a break before we somehow turn on literal nazis 2.0.[/QUOTE] Being needlessly interventionist is something you guys really need to fully shake off. Assisting countries you actually like or ones you want to try and bolster relationships with isn't a bad thing. But attempt to force regime change, or half assing assistance just leads to the power vacuums that allowed these groups to flourish. It'd also be nice to not have our asses dragged into fights because you guys started one. For some reason our MPs love to join in whilst at the same time whine about it.