• Trump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy
    91 replies, posted
[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] We just prefer to live in the real world where China and Russia aren't a substantial threat. None of these countries are minute-to-midnight and we still almost double the Chinese military budget, and quadruple the Russian one when ignoring the United States military expenses. Annexing other countries and territory is a terrible idea, its why we by far don't do it, not because we're on a moral high-ground.
He doesn't care much for foreign policy, he wants to cut economic ties with other nations, and now he wants to shut down NATO. I'm seeing a pattern: Trump is isolationist.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49982527]He doesn't care much for foreign policy, he wants to cut economic ties with other nations, and now he wants to shut down NATO. I'm seeing a pattern: Trump is isolationist.[/QUOTE] Where does Trump say he want's to "shut down NATO"? All I see is that he's saying is that NATO costs the US a lot of money (which is a debatable and complicated point). Nevermind that NATO is a alliance based on a treaty. If the US stops spending money on military presence in Europe, NATO won't disappear. It's ability to fulfill it's goal of deterring Russia would be diminished, but Europe doesn't seem that concerned about Russia so why continue to waste money.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;49981159]Us having an isolationist stance after WWI was [U]not[/U] the catalyst for WWII. More of it was due to international economic depression and the Paris Peace Conference which practically drained German, which gave more leverage for the Nazi party to rise to power.[/QUOTE] Didn't say it started the war but it lead to us joining it. Europe would of been a hell of a lot different had we not. We can try to isolate ourselves but we need to be aware of when to get involved because if we don't it will come back and bite us.
[QUOTE=Swiket;49980863]Washington Post put up the full transcript, which contains this great excerpt: [img]http://i.imgur.com/FyJiPjW.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Man, I don't think I've ever seen anybody as adept as Trump is at speaking a whole lot while saying very little. [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] [I]Can I give a longwinded but essentially meaningless reply? Look, sure I can give a longwinded meaningless reply. I can do it better than anybody else. I'm the [I]best[/I] at longwinded meaningless replies to questions. I've had my supporters walk up to me and say, "wow, Mr. Trump, you really are something special at giving londwinded meaningless replies," like maybe they thought I was incapable of making longwinded meaningless replies. You know, Ted Cruz has made comments before about how he thinks I'm no good at making longwinded meaningless replies, but let me tell you something: I can make longwinded meaningless replies like nobody else! It was in a debate even, Ted Cruz didn't know what else to say, so he accused me about having-- he said I can't make longwinded meaningless replies! Well Mister Cruz if that were true, would I have strangers coming up in the street and saying-- telling me that my replies were longer and windier and more meaningless than anybody else they've ever seen? I have a huge monster dong, too.[/I]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49983273]Man, I don't think I've ever seen anybody as adept as Trump is at speaking a whole lot while saying very little. [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] [I]Can I give a longwinded but essentially meaningless reply? Look, sure I can give a longwinded meaningless reply. I can do it better than anybody else. I'm the [I]best[/I] at longwinded meaningless replies to questions. I've had my supporters walk up to me and say, "wow, Mr. Trump, you really are something special at giving londwinded meaningless replies," like maybe they thought I was incapable of making longwinded meaningless replies. You know, Ted Cruz has made comments before about how he thinks I'm no good at making longwinded meaningless replies, but let me tell you something: I can make longwinded meaningless replies like nobody else! It was in a debate even, Ted Cruz didn't know what else to say, so he accused me about having-- he said I can't make longwinded meaningless replies! Well Mister Cruz if that were true, would I have strangers coming up in the street and saying-- telling me that my replies were longer and windier and more meaningless than anybody else they've ever seen? I have a huge monster dong, too.[/I][/QUOTE] Donald Trump and Ironman17 - never seen in the same room?
This NATO thing is a good example of why he's not qualified for the office. Every time a country pulls out of a treaty it signs, that costs prestige and credibility(in addition to practical consequences). Some day the US may [i]need[/i] to build an alliance and get a treaty signed, if we had unilaterally dismantled NATO how eager does he think any country will be to sign a new treaty with us? Saddam Hussein once asked our ambassador about our position regarding some disagreement he had with Kuwait and our reply was we had no interest in that dispute. So he invaded Kuwait. That's the kind of thing that happens when people think you are an isolationist and won't care about what goes on in the rest of the world. That set off a chain of events that's still happening even now.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;49984686]This NATO thing is a good example of why he's not qualified for the office. Every time a country pulls out of a treaty it signs, that costs prestige and credibility(in addition to practical consequences). Some day the US may [i]need[/i] to build an alliance and get a treaty signed, if we had unilaterally dismantled NATO how eager does he think any country will be to sign a new treaty with us? Saddam Hussein once asked our ambassador about our position regarding some disagreement he had with Kuwait and our reply was we had no interest in that dispute. So he invaded Kuwait. That's the kind of thing that happens when people think you are an isolationist and won't care about what goes on in the rest of the world. That set off a chain of events that's still happening even now.[/QUOTE] He's not for a total withdraw from NATO he just wants other countries to start spending money on their own defense as opposed to the US doing most the NATO involved stuff. The question with NATO that I hear people say is "why does America have to defend/police everyone else." "Why do we have to spend billions on military". I'm sure we aren't doing it for totally free, we probably get at least something from it, but we cannot sustain a world police army [I]and[/I] improve our own country at the same time without going even more into debt than we already are.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49982527]He doesn't care much for foreign policy, he wants to cut economic ties with other nations, and now he wants to shut down NATO. I'm seeing a pattern: Trump is isolationist.[/QUOTE] I think the US should go through a small isolationist stage. Allow us to focus on building our own nation, instead of other ones that hate us regardless. And help the rest of the world remember what the US brings to the table.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49984866]I think the US should go through a small isolationist stage. Allow us to focus on building our own nation, instead of other ones that hate us regardless. And help the rest of the world remember what the US brings to the table.[/QUOTE] Isolationism isn't really possible in this day and age. Of course this doesn't mean to go involving oneself in wars for little to no gain (like both world wars, which America exerted an effort far in excess of what was reasonable), but it does mean you should continue diplomacy with neighbours and major trading partners. It also means continuing to uphold obligations in diplomacy and encouraging the expansion and deepening of varied political and economic ties with friendly nations.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984917]Isolationism isn't really possible in this day and age. Of course this doesn't mean to go involving oneself in wars for little to no gain (like both world wars, which America exerted an effort far in excess of what was reasonable), but it does mean you should continue diplomacy with neighbours and major trading partners. It also means continuing to uphold obligations in diplomacy and encouraging the expansion and deepening of varied political and economic ties with friendly nations.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I agree, not totally isolationist. But no military intervention, and stopping financial aid.
I say go for it. But you have to destroy ISIS first, and generally the whole threat of Islamic extremism slowly infesting the whole god damned world. See what's happening in Europe. You can't just pull out when it's really getting heated up.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49985205]I say go for it. But you have to destroy ISIS first, and generally the whole threat of Islamic extremism slowly infesting the whole god damned world. See what's happening in Europe. You can't just pull out when it's really getting heated up.[/QUOTE] Terrorism knocked at our door, we went and took care of the guys who did it and chopped the head off of their organization. Your turn.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49985269]Terrorism knocked at our door, we went and took care of the guys who did it and chopped the head off of their organization. Your turn.[/QUOTE] and subsequently made the situation worse than ever by pulling out at exactly the wrong time I hate saying this, but Mccain was right. You never should have left.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49985276]and subsequently made the situation worse than ever by pulling out at exactly the wrong time I hate saying this, but Mccain was right. You never should have left.[/QUOTE] Of course we did, but that's what Obama wanted, so that's what he got.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49985300]Of course we did, but that's what Obama wanted, so that's what he got.[/QUOTE] And tons of republicans also screamed "get us out of this war" when they were the ones who screamed to get into it in a shortsighted fit of patriotism so really, stop trying to make the blame partisan when it's clearly both sides faults.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49985300]Of course we did, but that's what Obama wanted, so that's what he got.[/QUOTE] There was wide public bipartisan support for pulling out because we discovered that they had no WMDs in the first place. It was a mistake to go in but it was a mistake to pull out so soon.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49985269]Terrorism knocked at our door, we went and took care of the guys who did it and chopped the head off of their organization. Your turn.[/QUOTE] Looks like a half-assed job to me.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49985300]Of course we did, but that's what Obama wanted, so that's what he got.[/QUOTE] Bush is the one who committed to the deadline for pulling out.
See, that's the thing about pulling out. You gotta do it at the right time. If you pull out too soon, you get a big mess. If you don't pull out soon enough, you'll birth a long term drain on resources.
While NATO's original purpose has disappeared, there are still plenty of reasons for it to remain in existence but I think the other NATO countries need to start paying their parts of the defense budget because the United States is rapidly losing the ability to keeping paying for all of it.
Trump isn't satan like everyone in the world seems to believe. Just because he's cautious about people coming from a turbulent region of the world deserve more scrutiny makes him a bigot? I mean sure he does say some far out and crazy stuff sometimes, but he has potential to be one of the greatest foreign policy presidents of all time. I mean, why would I want Clinton who has no upsides over trump who has at least one?
[QUOTE=space1;49991654], but he has potential to be one of the greatest foreign policy presidents of all time. [/QUOTE]I'd say you should do comedy, but there aren't enough Pulmonologists in the world deal with the insuing injuries to people's sides.
[QUOTE=space1;49991654]Trump isn't satan like everyone in the world seems to believe. Just because he's cautious about people coming from a turbulent region of the world deserve more scrutiny makes him a bigot? I mean sure he does say some far out and crazy stuff sometimes, but he has potential to be one of the greatest foreign policy presidents of all time. I mean, why would I want Clinton who has no upsides over trump who has at least one?[/QUOTE] Muslims come from all over the world though and the Middle East makes up less than a third of the total Muslim population.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49979887]I don't get people who say "Don't vote for Clinton, vote for Trump", yet profess views which are the diametric opposite of Trumps. Has the world gone insane?[/QUOTE] People may disagree with Trump but they hate Clinton more.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49991710]I'd say you should do comedy, but there aren't enough Pulmonologists in the world deal with the insuing injuries to people's sides.[/QUOTE] It's a stretch, but Putin loves him, and he could potentially cause Japan to actually legally be able to maintain a functioning military again, so to some end he could bring good. It's just optimistic thinking I suppose, but it's not a delusional conclusion to come to that he could very well do good on the Russia-America relationship. It's not like we should be enemies with them even if they are doing questionable things. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
[QUOTE=space1;49992351]It's a stretch, but Putin loves him, and he could potentially cause Japan to actually legally be able to maintain a functioning military again, so to some end he could bring good. It's just optimistic thinking I suppose, but it's not a delusional conclusion to come to that he could very well do good on the Russia-America relationship. It's not like we should be enemies with them even if they are doing questionable things. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."[/QUOTE] Putin loves him because Putin knows he can boss Trump around.
Trumps never seen or dealt with real power. Having to actually clash with Putin over issues and policies, Putin will roll him up and toss him away. Sanders may not have a shit ton of ballsy behaviour in his campaign, but I know he'd do well to stand up to him in a dialogue. Trump would start with his trademark bluster and he'll fall apart before you know it. Clinton would fair better than Trump as well as she's one of the slipperiest politicians alive today.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992552]Trumps never seen or dealt with real power. Having to actually clash with Putin over issues and policies, Putin will roll him up and toss him away. Sanders may not have a shit ton of ballsy behaviour in his campaign, but I know he'd do well to stand up to him in a dialogue. Trump would start with his trademark bluster and he'll fall apart before you know it. Clinton would fair better than Trump as well as she's one of the slipperiest politicians alive today.[/QUOTE] I have to say, I don't think I've seen Sanders get particularly flustered. He gets passionate about things he really cares about, but never to the point he sounds like a broken record. And attempts to attack his character seem to be met with disinterest most of the time. Trump on the other hand is still fixated on the "small hands" comments from weeks ago and is quite easy to trip up if you can get any kind of jab at him or his policy in between the meaningless word tsunami that is his debate style. Someone who can actually partake in dialogue and doesn't tend to get too bent out of shape over it not going perfectly would be significantly better for foreign relations than "and then I whip it out" powerplays.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49992947]I have to say, I don't think I've seen Sanders get particularly flustered. He gets passionate about things he really cares about, but never to the point he sounds like a broken record. And attempts to attack his character seem to be met with disinterest most of the time. Trump on the other hand is still fixated on the "small hands" comments from weeks ago and is quite easy to trip up if you can get any kind of jab at him or his policy in between the meaningless word tsunami that is his debate style. Someone who can actually partake in dialogue and doesn't tend to get too bent out of shape over it not going perfectly would be significantly better for foreign relations than "and then I whip it out" powerplays.[/QUOTE] I really think a debate between Sanders and Trump over a couple of weeks would show how weak Trump really is. He's such a vain, narcisstic cow of a person that I can't believe it would be hard to actually fuck him up. Like you said, he's still dwelling on the fingers thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.