QuoteTrump questions need for NATO, outlines noninterventionist foreign policy
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa March 21 at 4:30 PM
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.
The meeting at The Post covered a range of issues, including media libel laws, violence at his rallies, climate change, NATO and the U.S. presence in Asia.
Speaking ahead of a major address on foreign policy later Monday in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Trump said he advocates a light footprint in the world. 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.
"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."
For the first time, Trump also listed members of a team chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that is counseling him on foreign affairs and helping to shape his policies: Keith Kellogg, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Walid Phares and Joseph E. Schmitz.
Trump praised George P. Shultz, who served as President Ronald Reagan's top diplomat, and was harshly critical of current secretary of state John F. Kerry. He questioned the United States' continued involvement in NATO and, on the subject of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, said America's allies are "not doing anything."
"Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting," Trump said. "They're not doing anything. And I say: 'Why is it that Germany's not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren't they dealing? Why are we always the one that's leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.' "
Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."
Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there.
"South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We're constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we're reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."
Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don't think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We're a debtor nation."
Trump cast China as a leading economic and geopolitical rival and said the United States should toughen its trade alliances to better compete.
"China has got unbelievable ambitions," Trump said. "China feels very invincible. We have rebuilt China. They have drained so much money out of our country that they've rebuilt China. Without us, you wouldn't see the airports and the roadways and the bridges. The George Washington Bridge [in New York], that's like a trinket compared to the bridges that they build in China. We don't build anymore. We had our day."
Trump began the hour-long meeting by pulling out a list of some of his foreign policy advisers.
"Walid Phares, who you probably know. PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives. He's a counterterrorism expert," Trump said. "Carter Page, PhD. George Papadopoulos. He's an oil and energy consultant. Excellent guy. The honorable Joe Schmitz, [was] inspector general at the Department of Defense. General Keith Kellogg. And I have quite a few more. But that's a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do. But that's a pretty representative group."
Trump said he plans to share more names in the coming days.
Kellogg, a former Army lieutenant general, is an executive vice president at CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm with clients around the world. He has experience in national defense and homeland security issues and worked as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad following the invasion of Iraq.
Schmitz served as inspector general at the Defense Department during the early years of President George W. Bush's administration and has worked for Blackwater Worldwide. In a brief phone call Monday, Schmitz confirmed that he is working for the Trump campaign and said that he has been involved for the past month. He said he frequently confers with Sam Clovis, one of Trump's top policy advisers, and that there has been a series of conference calls and briefings in recent weeks.
Papadopoulos directs an international energy center at the London Center of International Law Practice. He previously advised the presidential campaign of Ben Carson and worked as a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
Phares has an academic background, teaching at the National Defense University and Daniel Morgan Academy in Washington, and has advised members of Congress and appeared as a television analyst discussing terrorism and the Middle East.
Page, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and now the managing partner of Global Energy Capital, is a longtime energy industry executive who rose through the ranks at Merrill Lynch around the world before founding his current firm. He previously was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he focused on the Caspian Sea region and the economic development in former Soviet states, according to his company biography and documents from his appearances at panels over the past decade.
Trump's meeting with The Post was on the record. An audio recording was shared by the editorial board, and a full transcript will be posted later Monday. Trump was accompanied to the meeting, which took place at The Post's new headquarters, by his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and spokeswoman, Hope Hicks.
QuoteOne of Trump's foreign policy advisers is a 2009 college grad who lists Model UN as a credential
By Missy Ryan March 21 at 6:33 PM
Washington Post
Republican presidential contender Donald Trump on Monday provided five names on his foreign policy team after months of speculation over who could be advising the businessman front-runner. Here's what we know so far about the advisers named by Trump in a meeting with The Washington Post.
Joseph Schmitz
Schmitz served as inspector general at the Department of Defense during the George W. Bush administration. A Los Angeles Times investigation in 2005 revealed a number of issues with Schmitz's term there.
Schmitz slowed or blocked investigations of senior Bush administration officials, spent taxpayer money on pet projects and accepted gifts that may have violated ethics guidelines, according to interviews with current and former senior officials in the inspector general's office, congressional investigators and a review of internal email and other documents.
Schmitz also drew scrutiny for his unusual fascination with Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Revolutionary War hero who is considered the military's first true inspector general. Schmitz even replaced the official inspector general's seal in offices nationwide with a new one bearing the Von Steuben family motto, according to the documents and interviews.
He later became a senior official at the Prince Group, the parent company of defense contractor Blackwater. In an article in The Washington Post covering the move, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said, "The inspector general is a standard-bearer for ethics and integrity for the Pentagon. To see a person who has been holding that position cash in on his public service and go work for one of their contractors is tremendously disappointing."
In a brief phone call Monday, Schmitz confirmed that he is working for the Trump campaign and said that he has been involved for the past month. He said he frequently confers with Sam Clovis, one of Trump's top policy advisers, and that there has been a series of conference calls and briefings in recent weeks.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Schmitz attended the U.S. Naval Academy and Stanford Law School, and has worked in recent years for two small law firms bearing his name. His father is the late former Republican congressman John G. Schmitz, who was also a member of the right-wing John Birch Society. One of Schmitz's siblings is Mary Kay Letourneau, the ex-schoolteacher who received seven years in prison for child rape after starting a relationship with a 13-year-old student.
George Papadopoulos
Papadopoulos, a 2009 graduate of DePaul University, directs an international energy center at the London Center of International Law Practice. He previously advised the presidential campaign of Ben Carson and worked as a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. According to his LinkedIn profile, he has had meetings with the president of Cyprus and the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. He obtained a masters's degree from the University of London in 2010.
A biography on Carson's website says Papadopoulos "designed the first ever project in Washington, D.C. think-tank history on U.S., Greece, Cyprus and Israel relations at a symposium entitled 'Power Shifts in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Emerging Strategic Relationship of Israel, Greece and Cyprus.' "
On his LinkedIn page, Papadopolous lists among his awards and honors that he was U.S. Representative at the 2012 Geneva International Model United Nations.
Papadopoulos confirmed on Monday that he was an adviser to Trump but declined further comment.
Walid Phares
Phares is a provost at BAU International University, an institution in downtown Washington that was founded in 2013. According to his LinkedIn profile and his personal website, Phares has taught at various colleges and universities and has advised members of Congress. He has also been an analyst for Fox News. He obtained his PhD from the University of Miami.
Phares attracted attention in 2012 when, as an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential bid, a Mother Jones story linked him to armed Christian factions blamed for abuses in Lebanon's civil war.
During the 1980s, Phares, a Maronite Christian, trained Lebanese militants in ideological beliefs justifying the war against Lebanon's Muslim and Druze factions, according to former colleagues. Phares, they say, advocated the hard-line view that Lebanon's Christians should work toward creating a separate, independent Christian enclave. A photo obtained by Mother Jones shows him conducting a press conference in 1986 for the Lebanese Forces, an umbrella group of Christian militias that has been accused of committing atrocities. He was also a close adviser to Samir Geagea, a Lebanese warlord who rose from leading hit squads to running the Lebanese Forces.
He did not immediately respond to attempts by The Post to contact him.
J. Keith Kellogg Jr.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Kellogg is a former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division. After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he served as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. He has also worked at Oracle, Virginia-based CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm with clients around the world, and Abraxas, a risk mitigation firm.
Kellogg was interviewed by The Washington Post in 2005 soon after he joined CACI:
I started my career in the U.S. military. Traditionally in the military . . . you either start with a technical background or a more leadership-focused one. I took the leadership path. The scope of responsibility starts from leading about 30 people to where I finished with 14,000 people that I led and managed. You are responsible for budget, housing, feeding, training, equipping, making sure that the families are taken care of. So it's a huge management responsibility.
Kellogg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Carter Page
Page, a longtime energy executive, told The Washington Post that he and other advisers have met with the Trump campaign. Page is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and rose through the ranks at Merrill Lynch before founding his current firm, Global Energy Capital. He previously was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he focused on the Caspian Sea region and the economic development in former Soviet states, Carter told The Post in a phone call. He is also a fellow at the Center for National Policy in Washington and has a PhD from the University of London.
In a September 2014 article, Page appeared to blame NATO in part for provoking Russia.
While interventionist policies of the Soviet Union might have stood as the pivotal threat in Europe when Thatcher was rising to power as she argued at the time, similar aggressive policies of pushing NATO right to Russia's doorstep have instigated today's predicament.
Why the hate?
Trump of the Will?
So what you're saying Money, is that his foreign policy team has a Riefenstahl tinge to it? ;)
Trump isn't really allike that interesting. I've moved to no longer give ad clicks on articles with his name in the headline.
To be fair, they'd probably do a better job than either Mission Accomplished or the Nobel Prize winner. ;)
Quote from: garbon on March 21, 2016, 07:38:36 PM
Trump isn't really allike that interesting. I've moved to no longer give ad clicks on articles with his name in the headline.
Thing is, this is the first real hint to any semblance of actual policy and declared positions. it's not just his usual bullshit. This is really tangible bullshit.
"Schmitz also drew scrutiny for his unusual fascination with Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Revolutionary War hero who is considered the military's first true inspector general. Schmitz even replaced the official inspector general's seal in offices nationwide with a new one bearing the Von Steuben family motto, according to the documents and interviews."
I can appreciate that. It is kind of cool. :bowler:
I thought von Steuben faked his aristocratic background.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:19:20 PM
I thought von Steuben faked his aristocratic background.
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Trump's team.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
Trump of the Will?
So what you're saying Money, is that his foreign policy team has a Riefenstahl tinge to it? ;)
Seedy knows how to title threads. You'd do well to just pay him to title yours.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:19:20 PM
I thought von Steuben faked his aristocratic background.
I have heard many a scandalous rumor about him but this is a new one. Where did you hear this?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Trump's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
Quote"South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We're constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we're reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."
Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don't think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We're a debtor nation."
He always sounds like the crotchety old uncle in the extended family that you let yammer on for hours on Thanksgiving while he's watching football and yearning for the days when brown people knew their place.
It sounds like he read two paragraphs in a Newsweek from fifteen years ago and now he thinks he knows everything there is about the subject and he would fix it if only they'd read his letters he sends from the basement every three or four days.
It's like he's reading the cliff notes version of foreign policy and he has no idea what's hes actually talking about but, hey, I just read what's on the cheat sheet and go with my gut and I'll ace the exam because that's worked before (it hasn't)
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 21, 2016, 08:48:44 PM
He always sounds like the crotchety old uncle in the extended family that you let yammer on for hours on Thanksgiving while he's watching football and yearning for the days when brown people knew their place.
It sounds like he read two paragraphs in a Newsweek from fifteen years ago and now he thinks he knows everything there is about the subject and he would fix it if only they'd read his letters he sends from the basement every three or four days.
It's like he's reading the cliff notes version of foreign policy and he has no idea what's hes actually talking about but, hey, I just read what's on the cheat sheet and go with my gut and I'll ace the exam because that's worked before (it hasn't)
Yeah, the ROKs have universal conscription, so it isn't like they are not pulling their weight.
My ROK exchange students hate that above all other things.
I know Japan contributes toward the upkeep of US troops stationed in Japan. Anyone know if Korea does the same?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Trump's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
That's weird, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that von Steuben wasn't actually an aristocrat. Strange that his wiki page doesn't even mention the idea in passing somewhere.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 21, 2016, 08:48:44 PM
Quote"South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We're constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we're reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."
Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don't think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We're a debtor nation."
He always sounds like the crotchety old uncle in the extended family that you let yammer on for hours on Thanksgiving while he's watching football and yearning for the days when brown people knew their place.
It sounds like he read two paragraphs in a Newsweek from fifteen years ago and now he thinks he knows everything there is about the subject and he would fix it if only they'd read his letters he sends from the basement every three or four days.
It's like he's reading the cliff notes version of foreign policy and he has no idea what's hes actually talking about but, hey, I just read what's on the cheat sheet and go with my gut and I'll ace the exam because that's worked before (it hasn't)
Except that Trump has believed that since he was younger. There is an youtube of him on Oprah from way back with him talking these same points.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 21, 2016, 09:22:34 PM
Except that Trump has believed that since he was younger. There is an youtube of him on Oprah from way back with him talking these same points.
This one, from nearly 30 years ago (holy shit, I am getting old): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
The rhetoric is pretty much exactly the same as his rhetoric now.
Well, the US walking back from its NATO and other alliance commitments certainly change the international order in a significant way, as would the US keeping those commitments more or less but demanding significant amounts of cash on the table for sticking to them.
I'd expect more instability across the globe as a result, including some of it in ways that the US would find displeasing.
Of course, it does seem to be his MO to talk a big game to capitalize if the other side buys into it, but to walk it back or abandon the position if they don't. How will it play out in this case? Who knows...
I am concerned about Trump's anti-free trade position.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 21, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
I am concerned about Trump's anti-free trade position.
Trump is all for free trade...it just has to be fair trade. :P
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2016, 10:13:57 PM
Well, the US walking back from its NATO and other alliance commitments certainly change the international order in a significant way, as would the US keeping those commitments more or less but demanding significant amounts of cash on the table for sticking to them.
I'd expect more instability across the globe as a result, including some of it in ways that the US would find displeasing.
Of course, it does seem to be his MO to talk a big game to capitalize if the other side buys into it, but to walk it back or abandon the position if they don't. How will it play out in this case? Who knows...
A major problem is that if he was elected, he has said so many alarming and undiplomatic things that allies are going to distance themselves from him at the time of the inauguration.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 21, 2016, 10:27:33 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 21, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
I am concerned about Trump's anti-free trade position.
Trump is all for free trade...it just has to be fair trade. :P
You are being exploited. I am being exploited. We trade. It is fair :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 21, 2016, 10:27:33 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 21, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
I am concerned about Trump's anti-free trade position.
Trump is all for free trade...it just has to be fair trade. :P
He is all for free trade, just not any of the free trade deals we have signed, because we have apparently gotten ripped off in all of them.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 10:31:07 PM
A major problem is that if he was elected, he has said so many alarming and undiplomatic things that allies are going to distance themselves from him at the time of the inauguration.
I don't think so.
The fact is that the US is hugely important, and US allies - at least their leaders - will swallow a fair bit of shit to maintain that relationship. If Trump gets sworn in it'll be all "we look forward to working with the new administration" pretty much across the board. At worst it'll be "while we have significant differences, we look forward to working with the new administration in areas where we share objectives."
If Trump comes on like he positions himself (as opposed to bluster big, but being reasonable operator when it comes down to brass tacks), then I expect the real damage will be something like this:
1) Non-US aligned regional powers will throw their weight around more significantly leading to instability, damage to US interests, and the potential for more hot conflicts that the US ultimately could not ignore.
2) US aligned states - be they powerful or not - would chart more independent courses with a higher potential to run counter US interests, as well as increasing the potential for conflict. One area that could get pretty ugly is nuclear non-proliferation.
3) I also expect that overall, the position of anti-US constituents of various current US allies would grow - hampering the ability of US to lead on the world stage moving forward in millions of small detail ways that nonetheless add up.
Ultimately, however much Trump feels it's bad to the US, the US sits at the top of the current world order. He is proposing a realignment. It seems to me that the US risks to lose more than it stands to gain from shaking things up.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 21, 2016, 08:48:44 PM
Quote"South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We're constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we're reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."
Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don't think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We're a debtor nation."
He always sounds like the crotchety old uncle in the extended family that you let yammer on for hours on Thanksgiving while he's watching football and yearning for the days when brown people knew their place.
It sounds like he read two paragraphs in a Newsweek from fifteen years ago and now he thinks he knows everything there is about the subject and he would fix it if only they'd read his letters he sends from the basement every three or four days.
It's like he's reading the cliff notes version of foreign policy and he has no idea what's hes actually talking about but, hey, I just read what's on the cheat sheet and go with my gut and I'll ace the exam because that's worked before (it hasn't)
He's been going on about this from the early 90s at least, maybe late 80s. Along with his protectionism it's the most consistent part of his political beliefs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 10:53:14 PMHe's been going on about this from the early 90s at least, maybe late 80s. Along with his protectionism it's the most consistent part of his political beliefs.
If it wasn't because I'd have to live with the consequences, I'd be curious to see how it all played out.
Quote from: sbr on March 21, 2016, 09:14:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Trump's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
That's weird, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that von Steuben wasn't actually an aristocrat. Strange that his wiki page doesn't even mention the idea in passing somewhere.
Nah, AFAIK the "von" was legit--he was a member of the aristocracy, though it was the lower aristocracy. OTOH, he did apparently rather inflate his service record from the Prussian Army.
De Kalb wasn't born into the aristocracy, but was elevated to the French nobility for distinguished military service.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 11:01:47 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 21, 2016, 09:14:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Trump's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
That's weird, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that von Steuben wasn't actually an aristocrat. Strange that his wiki page doesn't even mention the idea in passing somewhere.
Nah, AFAIK the "von" was legit--he was a member of the aristocracy, though it was the lower aristocracy. OTOH, he did apparently rather inflate his service record from the Prussian Army.
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by legit. It appears that he received his title after becoming chamberlain to the "petty court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen" after being discharged from the Prussian Army (for unknown reasons) at the age of 33. So while his title of Baron was legit, he was not born a noble and became a minor figure in a minor court as a second career.
I wonder if a Trump presidency would seek justice for LaVoy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 09:12:14 PM
Anyone know if Korea does the same?
No, they don't.
Your future President said they don't, so they don't. Because an outsider like him, trying to rebuild America would never lie :)
If you want the facts though, they are here:
Politifact: Donald Trump mostly wrong (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-wrong-we-get-practically-nothi/)
Summary: SK pays about 30% of the costs of maintaining 28,500 soldiers there, so close to 900 000 000$. They also have 500 000 troops of their own + reserves. Given that the troops aren't there solely for South Korea's benefit, it seems a fair deal for the US. I have no idea what is the deal for other US bases around the world (except Japan), so I can't compare.
China is spending billions upon billions trying to build up even a pale reflection of the US alliance network and base access around the world. And failing. The value of those alliances built up over the years is incalculable. That Trump sees them as a "bad deal" and would walk away is yet another example of his unfitness to hold the office he seeks, in this case perhaps the most significant one. China and Russia would laugh their asses off if Trump won and actually carried out his proposed foreign policies.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 08:42:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
Trump of the Will?
So what you're saying Money, is that his foreign policy team has a Riefenstahl tinge to it? ;)
Seedy knows how to title threads. You'd do well to just pay him to title yours.
Seedy has the best thread titles, his titles are incredibly awesome. If you pay him to title your threads, your thread titles will be the best every. They will be so great. you will eventually start hating how awesome they are, because they will be the best.
Seedy's thread titles are astonishingly excellent, much like his health.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 10:51:59 AM
China is spending billions upon billions trying to build up even a pale reflection of the US alliance network and base access around the world. And failing. The value of those alliances built up over the years is incalculable. That Trump sees them as a "bad deal" and would walk away is yet another example of his unfitness to hold the office he seeks, in this case perhaps the most significant one. China and Russia would laugh their asses off if Trump won and actually carried out his proposed foreign policies.
No shit.
This stuff is fucking scary, not just because he says it, but because so many people appear to believe it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 10:51:59 AM
China is spending billions upon billions trying to build up even a pale reflection of the US alliance network and base access around the world. And failing. The value of those alliances built up over the years is incalculable. That Trump sees them as a "bad deal" and would walk away is yet another example of his unfitness to hold the office he seeks, in this case perhaps the most significant one. China and Russia would laugh their asses off if Trump won and actually carried out his proposed foreign policies.
Exactly. He is Putin's best hope. No wonder Marty likes him.
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:55:21 AM
This stuff is fucking scary, not just because he says it, but because so many people appear to believe it.
I don't know that people vote for him because they've thought about it and think he's right. I think they vote for him because this stuff is confusing and he talks loud.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2016, 07:29:51 PM
Quote
Walid Phares
Phares is a provost at BAU International University, an institution in downtown Washington that was founded in 2013. According to his LinkedIn profile and his personal website, Phares has taught at various colleges and universities and has advised members of Congress. He has also been an analyst for Fox News. He obtained his PhD from the University of Miami.
Phares attracted attention in 2012 when, as an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential bid, a Mother Jones story linked him to armed Christian factions blamed for abuses in Lebanon's civil war.
During the 1980s, Phares, a Maronite Christian, trained Lebanese militants in ideological beliefs justifying the war against Lebanon's Muslim and Druze factions, according to former colleagues. Phares, they say, advocated the hard-line view that Lebanon's Christians should work toward creating a separate, independent Christian enclave. A photo obtained by Mother Jones shows him conducting a press conference in 1986 for the Lebanese Forces, an umbrella group of Christian militias that has been accused of committing atrocities. He was also a close adviser to Samir Geagea, a Lebanese warlord who rose from leading hit squads to running the Lebanese Forces.
He did not immediately respond to attempts by The Post to contact him.
Holy shit... I can't believe a former FAU professor has risen (fallen?) so far...
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 08:42:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
Trump of the Will?
So what you're saying Money, is that his foreign policy team has a Riefenstahl tinge to it? ;)
Seedy knows how to title threads. You'd do well to just pay him to title yours.
Seedy has the best thread titles, his titles are incredibly awesome. If you pay him to title your threads, your thread titles will be the best every. They will be so great. you will eventually start hating how awesome they are, because they will be the best.
Also I'd like to point out that nothing-- absolutely nothing-- gets by Tim. He's almost as good a detective as Seedy himself!
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 10:52:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2016, 08:42:12 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2016, 07:35:40 PM
Trump of the Will?
So what you're saying Money, is that his foreign policy team has a Riefenstahl tinge to it? ;)
Seedy knows how to title threads. You'd do well to just pay him to title yours.
Seedy has the best thread titles, his titles are incredibly awesome. If you pay him to title your threads, your thread titles will be the best every. They will be so great. you will eventually start hating how awesome they are, because they will be the best.
:lmfao: :lmfao:
I laughed.
More on Trump foreign policy--
QuoteIn Donald Trump's Worldview, America Comes First, and Everybody Else Pays
By DAVID E. SANGER and MAGGIE HABERMANMARCH 26, 2016
www.nytimes.com
Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or "substantially reimburse" the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability.
"If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection," Mr. Trump said during a 100-minute interview on foreign policy, spread over two phone calls on Friday, "I don't think it would be around."
He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States "keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they're going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it," Mr. Trump said.
And he said he would be willing to withdraw United States forces from both Japan and South Korea if they did not substantially increase their contributions to the costs of housing and feeding those troops. "Not happily, but the answer is yes," he said.
Mr. Trump also said he would seek to renegotiate many fundamental treaties with American allies, possibly including a 56-year-old security pact with Japan, which he described as one-sided.
In Mr. Trump's worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought. He again faulted the Obama administration's handling of the negotiations with Iran last year — "It would have been so much better if they had walked away a few times," he said — but offered only one new idea about how he would change its content: Ban Iran's trade with North Korea.
Mr. Trump struck similar themes when he discussed the future of NATO, which he called "unfair, economically, to us," and said he was open to an alternative organization focused on counterterrorism. He argued that the best way to halt China's placement of military airfields and antiaircraft batteries on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea was to threaten its access to American markets.
"We have tremendous economic power over China," he argued. "And that's the power of trade." He did not mention Beijing's ability for economic retaliation.
Mr. Trump's views, as he explained them, fit nowhere into the recent history of the Republican Party: He is not in the internationalist camp of President George Bush, nor does he favor President George W. Bush's call to make it the United States' mission to spread democracy around the world. He agreed with a suggestion that his ideas might be summed up as "America First."
"Not isolationist, but I am America First," he said. "I like the expression." He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. "We will not be ripped off anymore," he said.
In the past week, the bombings in Brussels and an accelerated war against the Islamic State have shifted the focus of the campaign trail conversation back to questions of how the candidates would defend the United States and what kind of diplomacy they would pursue around the world.
Mr. Trump explained his thoughts in concrete and easily digestible terms, but they appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences. Much the same way he treats political rivals and interviewers, he personalized how he would engage foreign nations, suggesting his approach would depend partly on "how friendly they've been toward us," not just on national interests or alliances.
At no point did he express any belief that American forces deployed on military bases around the world were by themselves valuable to the United States, though Republican and Democratic administrations have for decades argued that they are essential to deterring military adventurism, protecting commerce and gathering intelligence.
Like Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump emphasized the importance of "unpredictability" for an American president, arguing that the country's traditions of democracy and openness had made its actions too easy for adversaries and allies alike to foresee.
"I wouldn't want them to know what my real thinking is," he said of how far he was willing to take the confrontation over the islands in the South China Sea, which are remote and lightly inhabited but extend China's control over a major maritime thoroughfare. But, he added, "I would use trade, absolutely, as a bargaining chip."
Asked when he thought American power had been at its peak, Mr. Trump reached back 116 years to the turn of the 20th century, the era of another unconventional Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, who ended up leaving the party. His favorite figures in American history, he said, include two generals, Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton — though he said that, unlike MacArthur, he would not advocate using nuclear weapons except as a last resort. (He suggested MacArthur had pressed during the Korean War to use them against China as a means "to negotiate," adding, "He played the nuclear card, but he didn't use it.")
Mr. Trump denied that he had had trouble finding top members of the foreign policy establishment to advise him. "Many of them are tied up with contracts working for various networks," he said, like Fox or CNN.
He named three advisers in addition to five he announced earlier in the week: retired Maj. Gen. Gary L. Harrell, Maj. Gen. Bert K. Mizusawa and retired Rear Adm. Charles R. Kubic. They reflected a continuing bias toward former military officers, rather than diplomats or academics with foreign policy experience. General Harrell, a Special Forces veteran, was a commander in the failed "Black Hawk Down" mission in Somalia in 1993. Admiral Kubic, now president of an engineering firm, has been a sharp critic of President Obama's handling of the attack on Libya that helped oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Asked about the briefings he receives and books he has read on foreign policy, Mr. Trump said his main information source was newspapers, "including yours."
Until recently, his foreign policy pronouncements have largely come through slogans: "Take the oil," "Build a wall" and ban Muslim immigrants and visitors, at least temporarily. But as he pulls closer to the nomination, he has been called on to elaborate.
Pressed about his call to "take the oil" controlled by the Islamic State in the Middle East, Mr. Trump acknowledged that this would require deploying ground troops, something he does not favor. "We should've taken it, and we would've had it," he said, referring to the years in which the United States occupied Iraq. "Now we have to destroy the oil."
He did not rule out spying on American allies, including leaders like Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, whose cellphone was apparently a target of the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said the agency would no longer target her phone but made no such commitments about the rest of Germany, or Europe.
"I'm not sure that I would want to be talking about that," Mr. Trump said. "You understand what I mean by that."
Mr. Trump was not impressed with Ms. Merkel's handling of the migrant crisis, however: "Germany is being destroyed by Merkel's naïveté, or worse," he said. He suggested that Germany and the Gulf nations should pay for the "safe zones" he wants to set up in Syria for refugees, and for protecting them once built.
Throughout the two conversations, Mr. Trump painted a bleak picture of the United States as a diminished force in the world, an opinion he has held since the late 1980s, when he placed ads in The New York Times and other newspapers calling for Japan and Saudi Arabia to spend more money on their own defense.
Mr. Trump's new threat to cut off oil purchases from the Saudis was part of a broader complaint about the United States' Arab allies, which many in the Obama administration share: that they often look to the United States to police the Middle East, without putting their own troops at risk. "We defend everybody," he said. "When in doubt, come to the United States. We'll defend you. In some cases free of charge."
But his rationale for abandoning the region was that "the reason we're in the Middle East is for oil, and all of a sudden we're finding out that there's less reason to be there now." He made no mention of the risks of withdrawal — that it would encourage Iran to dominate the Gulf, that the presence of American troops is part of Israel's defense, and that American air and naval bases in the region are key collection points for intelligence and bases for drones and Special Operations forces.
Mr. Trump seemed less comfortable on some topics than others. He called the United States "obsolete" in terms of cyberweaponry, although the nation's capabilities are generally considered on the cutting edge.
In the morning interview, asked if he would seek a two-state or a one-state solution in a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians, he said: "I'm not saying anything. What I'm going to do is, you know, I specifically don't want to address the issue because I would love to see if a deal could be made."
But in the evening, saying he had been rushed earlier, he went back to a position outlined Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel group. "Basically, I support a two-state solution on Israel," he said. "But the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
In discussing nuclear weapons — which he said he had learned about from an uncle, John G. Trump, who was on the M.I.T. faculty — he seemed fixated on the large stockpiles amassed in the Cold War. While he referred briefly to North Korean and Pakistani arsenals, he said nothing about a danger that is a cause of great consternation among global leaders: small nuclear weapons that could be fashioned by terrorists.
In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, he expressed particular outrage at how the roughly $150 billion released to Iran (by his estimate; the number is in dispute) was being spent. "Did you notice they're buying from everybody but the United States?" he said.
Told that sanctions under United States law still bar most American companies from doing business with Iran, he said: "So, how stupid is that? We give them the money and we now say, 'Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,' right?"
But Mr. Trump, who has been pushed to demonstrate a basic command of international affairs, insisted that voters should not doubt his foreign policy fluency. "I do know my subject," he said.
If America doesn't consider it its own self-interest anymore to keep their bases here, they should leave. The US Africa Command is in my hometown and they use quite a bit of prime real estate. I don't see why we should pay a cent for such a HQ.
Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2016, 10:57:36 AM
If America doesn't consider it its own self-interest anymore to keep their bases here, they should leave. The US Africa Command is in my hometown and they use quite a bit of prime real estate. I don't see why we should pay a cent for such a HQ.
That kind of one sided analysis is as ignorant as Trump's.
QuoteTold that sanctions under United States law still bar most American companies from doing business with Iran, he said: "So, how stupid is that? We give them the money and we now say, 'Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,' right?"
He does kind of have a point there. Not that I want to defend anything Trump says or does.
Quote from: KlevesI think they vote for him because this stuff is confusing and he talks loud.
That might be the best explanation I've seen for his popularity.
So is he proposing the US impose tribute on other countries?
We could institute our version of the danegeld.
Quote from: dps on March 27, 2016, 12:03:40 PM
QuoteTold that sanctions under United States law still bar most American companies from doing business with Iran, he said: "So, how stupid is that? We give them the money and we now say, 'Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,' right?"
He does kind of have a point there. Not that I want to defend anything Trump says or does.
And what point is that?
That Trump should go to Congress and get those sanctions repealed, naturally.
I think Trump and dps are under the impression we are giving them money. As far as I know the closest to giving them money is that the US is returning money it took from Iran.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 11:01:47 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 21, 2016, 09:14:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Drumpf's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
That's weird, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that von Steuben wasn't actually an aristocrat. Strange that his wiki page doesn't even mention the idea in passing somewhere.
Nah, AFAIK the "von" was legit--he was a member of the aristocracy, though it was the lower aristocracy. OTOH, he did apparently rather inflate his service record from the Prussian Army.
De Kalb wasn't born into the aristocracy, but was elevated to the French nobility for distinguished military service.
This. He was very minor, non-landed aristocracy. He definitely inflated his Prussian military career, though a lot of his claims and backstory appear to have been created by The Americans in Paris Team before he was sent over to the colonies. He added to the myth with his entourage and general demeanor. He was a pretty good bullshit artist it seems. The interesting part is that by the end of his life, he had more or less lived up to all of his fake and exaggerated backstory, though with an American background. He reached the rank of Major General, he became friends with the ruler of a country, and he owned vast tracts of land. I live about 15 minutes from where he's buried and as part of my National Park Service duties, I rotate the operation of his (re)burial site as part of my duties. The NPS partnered with the State of New York to keep the von Steuben Memorial and the Oriskany Battlefield sites open and staffed in the mid '00's.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 27, 2016, 07:28:01 PM
I live about 15 minutes from where he's buried and as part of my National Park Service duties, I rotate the operation of his (re)burial site as part of my duties.
That's, like, double bonus karma points right there.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 27, 2016, 07:28:01 PM
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2016, 11:01:47 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 21, 2016, 09:14:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2016, 08:46:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 21, 2016, 08:39:58 PM
Making a fraudulent seal used to obtain a high ranking government position the emblem of the inspector general's office would be funny in its own way, and something I'd expect from a member of Donald Drumpf's team.
I wikied to check, and it looks like von Steuben was legit. Maybe de Kalb?
Which one was the Kraut that drilled the army at Valley Forge?
That's weird, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that von Steuben wasn't actually an aristocrat. Strange that his wiki page doesn't even mention the idea in passing somewhere.
Nah, AFAIK the "von" was legit--he was a member of the aristocracy, though it was the lower aristocracy. OTOH, he did apparently rather inflate his service record from the Prussian Army.
De Kalb wasn't born into the aristocracy, but was elevated to the French nobility for distinguished military service.
This. He was very minor, non-landed aristocracy. He definitely inflated his Prussian military career, though a lot of his claims and backstory appear to have been created by The Americans in Paris Team before he was sent over to the colonies. He added to the myth with his entourage and general demeanor. He was a pretty good bullshit artist it seems. The interesting part is that by the end of his life, he had more or less lived up to all of his fake and exaggerated backstory, though with an American background. He reached the rank of Major General, he became friends with the ruler of a country, and he owned vast tracts of land. I live about 15 minutes from where he's buried and as part of my National Park Service duties, I rotate the operation of his (re)burial site as part of my duties. The NPS partnered with the State of New York to keep the von Steuben Memorial and the Oriskany Battlefield sites open and staffed in the mid '00's.
IMO irrelevant whether he was a low ranking aristocrat or over inflated himself. He didn't really need to. To colonial hillbillies all he needed was the professionalism of a professional army.
Guy's got to be pissed about that memorial. He requested to be buried in an unmarked grave in his military greatcoat. Alas, New York wanted to build a road which would have went right over him so they excavated the grave. During the few days before he was reinterred, someone robbed his corpse of the greatcoat. Then New York build the Memorial over him. Whoops. To hell with your wishes, sir. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2016, 07:45:02 PM
IMO irrelevant whether he was a low ranking aristocrat or over inflated himself. He didn't really need to. To colonial hillbillies all he needed was the professionalism of a professional army.
Ah, but it was Congress he had to sell himself to. They were pissed about the massive influx of shitty European officers who came over offering their services for often inflated pricetags. Especially with how terrible a lot of them were. Bored or shitty French officers would often leverage their influence at home for commissions.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 27, 2016, 07:46:18 PM
Guy's got to be pissed about that memorial. He requested to be buried in an unmarked grave in his military greatcoat. Alas, New York wanted to build a road which would have went right over him so they excavated the grave. During the few days before he was reinterred, someone robbed his corpse of the greatcoat. Then New York build the Memorial over him. Whoops. To hell with your wishes, sir. :lol:
Damn
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 27, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2016, 07:45:02 PM
IMO irrelevant whether he was a low ranking aristocrat or over inflated himself. He didn't really need to. To colonial hillbillies all he needed was the professionalism of a professional army.
Ah, but it was Congress he had to sell himself to. They were pissed about the massive influx of shitty European officers who came over offering their services for often inflated pricetags. Especially with how terrible a lot of them were. Bored or shitty French officers would often leverage their influence at home for commissions.
Nice. :lol:
Doesn't "questioning NATO' and "embracing non-interventionism" sound like exactly what Europeans want us to do?
Or is that just the ranting teenagers on EUOT?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 27, 2016, 08:08:36 PM
Doesn't "questioning NATO' and "embracing non-interventionism" sound like exactly what Europeans want us to do?
Or is that just the ranting teenagers on EUOT?
Not just the teenagers on EUOT. Before the 2010 general elections the red-green parties that are now in power said that if they won they would demand the US leave all overseas military bases. Yes, those parties are quite retarded. Of course they haven't actually done this since coming to power in 2014, because they are a ship drifting rudderless with no aim or clue.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 27, 2016, 08:08:36 PM
Doesn't "questioning NATO' and "embracing non-interventionism" sound like exactly what Europeans want us to do?
Or is that just the ranting teenagers on EUOT?
As I've been saying for some time...be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...
America has a pretty strong, but generally latent, isolationist streak. That was obviously rather decisively put to sleep by WW2 and the aftermath.
But I think some 80 years later, that streak is getting pretty strong. Trump is an ignorant idiot obviously when it comes to foreign policy, but he understands the basic American psyche, it seems. And Americans are pretty tired of protecting the world it seems, and getting shit on as thanks.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 08:13:30 AM
And Americans are pretty tired of protecting the world it seems, and getting shit on as thanks.
You did get a lot of commercial opportunities from protecting Europe against the Soviets.
Same as you do now from protecting South Korea, and other countries, against North Korea.
As for getting shit on as thanks, deal with it. It will happen either way. You do nothing, you are barbarians for not doing anything, it's only because the victims are muslims/black/brown/not english speaking/not in america/etc you don't do anything. You didn't do much in the Syrian civil war, and it's coming to bite you. The Euros are in the same situation, they avoided for as long as they could intervening against a barbaric regime, but that did not prevent attacks against them or their citizens abroad.
As for isolationism, we could discuss at lenght what that really meant in your history. It's closer to unilateralism or no-interventionism than true isolationism. The US sure has been at war with a lots of nations since it's founding to be a true isolationist power.
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:52:33 PM
As for isolationism, we could discuss at lenght what that really meant in your history. It's closer to unilateralism or no-interventionism than true isolationism. The US sure has been at war with a lots of nations since it's founding to be a true isolationist power.
The only true isolationist power was Japan and I am not sure we can just outlaw foreigners as effectively.
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:52:33 PM
You did get a lot of commercial opportunities from protecting Europe against the Soviets.
Same as you do now from protecting South Korea, and other countries, against North Korea.
This is what is forgotten by people like Trump (or more likely they never knew it), the current international system was set up by the US so that we could profit from it. The fact that the rest of the world profits is not a bad thing. It's not a zero/sum game. The US maintains a large number of military bases so the US can strike in areas of instability worldwide. Instability is bad for business. That the Japanese also profit from this stability is a positive. It keeps them busy and content and not bombing pearl harbor.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2016, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:52:33 PM
As for isolationism, we could discuss at lenght what that really meant in your history. It's closer to unilateralism or no-interventionism than true isolationism. The US sure has been at war with a lots of nations since it's founding to be a true isolationist power.
The only true isolationist power was Japan and I am not sure we can just outlaw foreigners as effectively.
If only. :(
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 08:13:30 AM
And Americans are pretty tired of protecting the world it seems, and getting shit on as thanks.
You did get a lot of commercial opportunities from protecting Europe against the Soviets.
Same as you do now from protecting South Korea, and other countries, against North Korea.
As for getting shit on as thanks, deal with it. It will happen either way. You do nothing, you are barbarians for not doing anything, it's only because the victims are muslims/black/brown/not english speaking/not in america/etc you don't do anything. You didn't do much in the Syrian civil war, and it's coming to bite you. The Euros are in the same situation, they avoided for as long as they could intervening against a barbaric regime, but that did not prevent attacks against them or their citizens abroad.
As for isolationism, we could discuss at lenght what that really meant in your history. It's closer to unilateralism or no-interventionism than true isolationism. The US sure has been at war with a lots of nations since it's founding to be a true isolationist power.
That is an impressive stringing together of strawman arguments. Well done.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States "keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they're going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it," Mr. Trump said.
I don't understand his idea here. Isn't US policy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to as few countries as possible? Also, Trump probably isn't aware that Japan is fiercely against nuclear weapons. A lot of Japanese think nuclear weapons is the ultimate evil. Japan has the technical knowhow and economic base to build nuclear weapons for many decades, but they have refrained from doing so for a reason. I also don't think arming South Korea with nuclear weapons will mesh well with the US stance that North Korea should be a nuclear weapons free area. If South Korea is nuclear armed, then the North will have solid grounds to be so armed as well.
I don't think Trump really cares about actual reality. He seems to be enjoying his own version too much.
It's GRAYEET
Make America Geat Again! #beowulf
Make America Grate Again! #nomorepregratedcheese
Make America Grrrrrrreat Again
#FrostedFlakes
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2016, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 08:13:30 AM
And Americans are pretty tired of protecting the world it seems, and getting shit on as thanks.
You did get a lot of commercial opportunities from protecting Europe against the Soviets.
Same as you do now from protecting South Korea, and other countries, against North Korea.
As for getting shit on as thanks, deal with it. It will happen either way. You do nothing, you are barbarians for not doing anything, it's only because the victims are muslims/black/brown/not english speaking/not in america/etc you don't do anything. You didn't do much in the Syrian civil war, and it's coming to bite you. The Euros are in the same situation, they avoided for as long as they could intervening against a barbaric regime, but that did not prevent attacks against them or their citizens abroad.
As for isolationism, we could discuss at lenght what that really meant in your history. It's closer to unilateralism or no-interventionism than true isolationism. The US sure has been at war with a lots of nations since it's founding to be a true isolationist power.
That is an impressive stringing together of strawman arguments. Well done.
Then keep listening to Trump, if he hasn't done so already, he'll soon convince you he'll make America great again :)
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2016, 05:05:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States "keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they're going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it," Mr. Trump said.
I don't understand his idea here. Isn't US policy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to as few countries as possible? Also, Trump probably isn't aware that Japan is fiercely against nuclear weapons. A lot of Japanese think nuclear weapons is the ultimate evil. Japan has the technical knowhow and economic base to build nuclear weapons for many decades, but they have refrained from doing so for a reason. I also don't think arming South Korea with nuclear weapons will mesh well with the US stance that North Korea should be a nuclear weapons free area. If South Korea is nuclear armed, then the North will have solid grounds to be so armed as well.
More weapons make us safer. Handguns, rifles, assault weapons, machine guns and now nuclear weapons for everyone is just the logical extension.
Except for Republican party convention that are to be no-weapon zones.
Make America Wait Again! #jdsalinger
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2016, 05:05:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States "keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they're going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it," Mr. Trump said.
I don't understand his idea here. Isn't US policy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to as few countries as possible? Also, Trump probably isn't aware that Japan is fiercely against nuclear weapons. A lot of Japanese think nuclear weapons is the ultimate evil. Japan has the technical knowhow and economic base to build nuclear weapons for many decades, but they have refrained from doing so for a reason. I also don't think arming South Korea with nuclear weapons will mesh well with the US stance that North Korea should be a nuclear weapons free area. If South Korea is nuclear armed, then the North will have solid grounds to be so armed as well.
More weapons make us safer. Handguns, rifles, assault weapons, machine guns and now nuclear weapons for everyone is just the logical extension.
Except for Republican party convention that are to be no-weapon zones.
I think Trump is *already* undermining US foreign policy now. He is the Republican front-runner, someone with a real shot at becoming the next US president. His words carry weight. No need to wait for the election; people are already wondering what is going on with the US and the Republican party.
No shit, Sherlock! ;)
Grumbler and Berkut don't seem to understand this though. They have Faith in their check&balance system and that is about to bite them in the ass. The problem is, we will all feel the pain. Well, maybe not you, you already speak Mandarin. You might have to learn Korean too, just to be safe ;)
You know viper, just lying out of your ass about fellow posters is really unattractive.
Whoa, non interventionist?
That's it.
I ain't voting for the Trumpminator no more.
How the hell are we going to keep fighting moonslims without interventionism?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2016, 05:05:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2016, 09:57:34 AM
He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States "keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they're going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it," Mr. Trump said.
I don't understand his idea here. Isn't US policy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to as few countries as possible? Also, Trump probably isn't aware that Japan is fiercely against nuclear weapons. A lot of Japanese think nuclear weapons is the ultimate evil. Japan has the technical knowhow and economic base to build nuclear weapons for many decades, but they have refrained from doing so for a reason. I also don't think arming South Korea with nuclear weapons will mesh well with the US stance that North Korea should be a nuclear weapons free area. If South Korea is nuclear armed, then the North will have solid grounds to be so armed as well.
But, North Korea already have nukes....
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2016, 01:18:57 AM
You know viper, just lying out of your ass about fellow posters is really unattractive.
Why would you think that viper, at this late date, suddenly has started caring about the unattractiveness of his lying? He is fighting evil people like Trump, and you, and me. There are no nuances in his world. All of those windmills are giants.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
No shit, Sherlock! ;)
Grumbler and Berkut don't seem to understand this though. They have Faith in their check&balance system and that is about to bite them in the ass. The problem is, we will all feel the pain. Well, maybe not you, you already speak Mandarin. You might have to learn Korean too, just to be safe ;)
I actually think the checks and balances would cancel out any idiocy on Trump's part. Just look at how Congress has been stalling Obama. And, no there's no irony or sarcasm in this.
While a US president still is the most powerful single person on Earth, there's quite a limit as to what he or she can do.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2016, 05:23:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2016, 01:18:57 AM
You know viper, just lying out of your ass about fellow posters is really unattractive.
Why would you think that viper, at this late date, suddenly has started caring about the unattractiveness of his lying? He is fighting evil people like Trump, and you, and me. There are no nuances in his world. All of those windmills are giants.
Have you not responded to someone's Chicken Little by pointing out that checks and balances limit the things a President Trump could do?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 10:41:23 AM
Have you not responded to someone's Chicken Little by pointing out that checks and balances limit the things a President Trump could do?
Yes.
So what exactly is Viper lying about?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
So what exactly is Viper lying about?
That I don't understand that Trump's rhetoric is harming the image of the US overseas even if he doesn't win the election, and that i believe that the constitutional system of checks and balances prevents foreigners from assigning weight to Trump's words. In other words, his entire statement about what I believe.
Pretty much every time people here tell you what others believe, rather than quoting those others on what they believe, they are lying.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
So what exactly is Viper lying about?
That grumbler and Berkut don't understand that Trump can damage foreign relations just by things he says. At least, I'm pretty sure that they understand that, and that Viper realizes that they do.
EDIT: Crap, ninja'd.
Don't seem to is subjective. He may be wrong but it doesn't make him a liar.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 10:58:54 AM
Don't seem to is subjective. He may be wrong but it doesn't make him a liar.
Fair enough, but at the very least, he's using a strawman. Saying that our Constitutional checks and balances limit the damage that Trump can do doesn't imply a lack of understanding that his mere statements can do some damage.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 10:58:54 AM
Don't seem to is subjective. He may be wrong but it doesn't make him a liar.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that it is only
possible that he is wrong and I am right about what I believe?
It seems to me that a deliberately posting a falsehood makes one a liar. You may have a different definition of liar, in which case he may not fit your definition. That's okay by me. I'll keep using my definition, though.
I seriously doubt there is much left to damage image-wise after cokehead.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2016, 04:20:44 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that it is only possible that he is wrong and I am right about what I believe?
He said you don't seem to understand (Mono's post). That isn't a question of what you believe, but of how you've expressed yourself.
He did say you had faith in our system of checks & balances, but your own posts support that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
He said you don't seem to understand (Mono's post). That isn't a question of what you believe, but of how you've expressed yourself.
I never said a word about Mono's post, so he was fabricating the idea that I didn't seem to understand it. I understood it completely, of course, and agree with it. I'd caveat that agreement, though, with the notion that Trump is hardly the first presidential candidate to give foreigners a sense that something is wrong with the US if people like that can be leading contenders for the top office. He's got the best words of that group of candidates, though.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2016, 08:41:50 PM
I never said a word about Mono's post, so he was fabricating the idea that I didn't seem to understand it.
You'd been discussing the same subjects already.
Consider this from Viper's POV. You've been dismissive of his concerns. Naturally, he'll feel you don't understand the gravity of the situation. This doesn't mean he's making things up to slander you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 08:57:33 PM
You'd been discussing the same subjects already.
Consider this from Viper's POV. You've been dismissive of his concerns. Naturally, he'll feel you don't understand the gravity of the situation. This doesn't mean he's making things up to slander you.
If it walks like a lie and quacks like a lie, I'm gonna call it a lie.
Consider this from Viper's POV. I've been crushing of his sillier concerns with evidence. Naturally, he'll feel that he can't debate the facts. This mean he's reduced to making things up to slander me.
Quote from: Siege on April 03, 2016, 04:46:33 AM
Whoa, non interventionist?
That's it.
I ain't voting for the Trumpminator no more.
How the hell are we going to keep fighting moonslims without interventionism?
Didn't your state already have its primary?
Quote from: Berkut on April 03, 2016, 01:18:57 AM
You know viper, just lying out of your ass about fellow posters is really unattractive.
What lies am saying? That you and Grumbler are less concerned about Trump than I am? How is it a lie, exactly?
Quote from: Norgy on April 03, 2016, 06:44:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
No shit, Sherlock! ;)
Grumbler and Berkut don't seem to understand this though. They have Faith in their check&balance system and that is about to bite them in the ass. The problem is, we will all feel the pain. Well, maybe not you, you already speak Mandarin. You might have to learn Korean too, just to be safe ;)
I actually think the checks and balances would cancel out any idiocy on Trump's part. Just look at how Congress has been stalling Obama. And, no there's no irony or sarcasm in this.
While a US president still is the most powerful single person on Earth, there's quite a limit as to what he or she can do.
Obama is facing the Tea Party, with a radically different idea about what the US should be.
The Tea Party is not a majority (don't have the exact numbers), but it's a significant force, pretty much stable. I don't foresee major gains, but a few more seats.
The way I see it, there are a lot of Republicans, Tea Party and others who agree with Trump's vision of the world.
Maybe the people voting Trump will also vote for Democratic or mainstream republican members in Congress when they renew their 1/3 of the seats. Maybe. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. I rather imagine that these people voting for guys like Trump will seek out other people who share parts of his ideas.
Having Trump as a presidential candidate could be very damaging, but as others said, it won't be the first time. Having him a President, even if there were an hostile Congress to prevent him from making the entirety of his agenda would create chaos among allies. Eventually, he'd get through some of his stupid legislations through Congress by bargaining on other things. Or, as he indicated would happen if the GOP blocked him from the nomination, organize violent protests, sorry, not organize, it would simply "happen" like that, how of the spontaneous love his people have for him.
And then Congress would chicken out.
And even if the Supreme Court could make some of "his" laws illegal, by the time it can happen, the damage will already be done. Just as with Guantanamo and the torture, the damage in foreign relations will already be done. And even if Trump himself would desire to comply with the ruling, depending on what we're talking, it could take a while to reverse these decisions.
Now, let's imagine a possible scenario of Trump winning by a narrow margin against Clinton with a totally hostile Congress that can't be cowed/pressured/intimidated in doing what he wants them to do. It's not the Republican party managed to rally the Senate and the House behind an unlikely proposal based on false premise before by attacking the patriotism of all their opponents, anyway. That has never been before seen and would never happen. ;)
Then, you have the President of the United States, still the most powerful nation on Earth, economically and military, spouting crap about Mexicans, Muslims and probably others. You have this President that proposes to be friend with Russia, a local bully trying to expand its sphere of influence, and willing to disengage from South Korea, and other places.
That sends a clear message to all tinpot dictators in the world: let's go!
I'm not aware of the fine details, but I'm guessing that removing troops and shutting down bases from South Korea and elsewhere in the world would require congressional approval, so that might not happen. But, if say, Russia decides to officially invaded Ukraine to protect the russian speaking minority mostly located in eastern Ukraine, Trump could decide to let it go, let Russia do. And then, how would the Balkans, part of NATO, an organism Trump openly says his not his thing, react? And then, are we better of, as a the world, with a bigger, stronger, Russia? That does not require anything to happen other than inaction.
Other countries, other dictators may also be tempted to pull some weirdshit, too.
While I understand some Americans, like Berkut, feeling that it's not the job of the US to police in the world, I disagree with that statement. We rely on the US as a world leader. It should not act alone, but it should certainly act and incited others to act to preserve world stability. While it might be true that war is good for business and that in the long run it makes safer and richer, not all wars are desirable. And peace is also good for business. Even mafiosi have learnt that seeking peace to freely commerce rather than all out constant war is more profitable.
So yeah, I still maintain that Trump is bad for business, mostly foreign business at first, but it will eventually catch up with Americans too when they have trouble selling their products oversea, or to latin america. Poorer americans means less tourists in Canada and less profitable canadian businesses that sells their products to Americans. Again, very bad for business in the long run.
And you know what's worst? A guy like that, becoming President, spouting crap about all kind of people and having a net preference toward tinpot dictators, even if kicked out of office after 4 years, the damages will still be felt for a couple of decades.
And we haven't even talked about the global terrorist threat. On some days, Trump pretends he's isolationist and doesn't want to intervene abroad. One some others, he says he wants to bomb random countries. He's hard to follow.
But either way, this is threat that needs to be tackled, militarily and ideologically. Not by ignoring it, and not by bombing stable, even if not close to US interest, countries.
Now, how likely is it that Trump will become President? Not very likely, imho. But he wasn't supposed to get this far either. And he's there. And he's got support. And maybe he won't win unnoposed, but I'm pretty sure he'll win the Republican convention. And then who knows? Against Sanders, it's a win, however unlikely it is that Sanders will win. Against Hillary, for now, she has the advantage. Who knows if the Republican spin doctors won't have more to grind their teeth on in a few months though? I've seen some democrats calling her discredited already because of the use of her personal e-mail account at work. I still think it's overblown, but I don't vote in the US, so it's pretty irrelevant what I think.
All in all, President Trump is less laughable today than it was six months ago. Six months from now, it could be a near certainty. There is certainly some apetite in the US public (and even elsewhere) for this kind of talk.
This is why I think Berkut and Grumbler don't fully realize yet the threat Trump poses to America, and by extension the rest of the world. I don't think they approve of him or fancy the idea voting for him, but there is this casual dismissal since the beginning, from a lot of people who only seem to wake up now.
Nope. He's not going to win.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Nope. He's not going to win.
And I am not going to read that wall of text. I'll assume that, somewhere in there, he says that neither Berkut nor I am not smart enough to understand all that he understands about US politics, and so we are not smart enough to worry about Trump like we should (and he does).
:yawn:
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2016, 02:15:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Nope. He's not going to win.
And I am not going to read that wall of text. I'll assume that, somewhere in there, he says that neither Berkut nor I am not smart enough to understand all that he understands about US politics, and so we are not smart enough to worry about Trump like we should (and he does).
:yawn:
Nah, you're journeyman level.
There was something about a Trump presidency being a certainty when he wins the nomination.
We in the Illuminati know this is Hillary's election.
#trumpcanwait #illuminatisfortrump2020
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Nope. He's not going to win.
I hope so, I still believe he can't win, but part of me can't help to notice he's still attracting support, despite the medias all waking up to him.
Denying a probability, even if it's small, that it can happen, is not something I usally do.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2016, 02:15:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Nope. He's not going to win.
And I am not going to read that wall of text. I'll assume that, somewhere in there, he says that neither Berkut nor I am not smart enough to understand all that he understands about US politics, and so we are not smart enough to worry about Trump like we should (and he does).
:yawn:
Once upon a time, a great man, according to him, at least, said something that goes like that:
Pretty much every time people here tell you what others believe, rather than quoting those others on what they believe, they are lying.
Damn. G-Man & B-Man given' the V-Man the business.
Highly entertaining.
Bravo, well done gentlemen.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 03:03:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2016, 02:15:57 PM
And I am not going to read that wall of text. I'll assume that, somewhere in there, he says that neither Berkut nor I am not smart enough to understand all that he understands about US politics, and so we are not smart enough to worry about Trump like we should (and he does).
:yawn:
Once upon a time, a great man, according to him, at least, said something that goes like that:
Pretty much every time people here tell you what others believe, rather than quoting those others on what they believe, they are lying.
That's why you will note that I am not telling anyone what
you believe; I am telling people what
I believe is somewhere in the tsunami of rhetoric. :lol:
You make this too easy.
What does this thread have to do with tits?
If the answer is "nothing", I nominate Lusti to nuke it from orbit.
Quote from: PDH on April 04, 2016, 09:16:46 PM
What does this thread have to do with tits?
If the answer is "nothing", I nominate Lusti to nuke it from orbit.
I rather enjoyed the brief von Steuben jaunt the thread took. Not a typical ACW style hijack. Oh well. Nuke it, Lusti!