Posted on 09/26/2015 4:34:57 AM PDT by McGruff
Donald Trump accused his Republican presidential rivals on Friday night of wanting to "start World War III over Syria," and suggested that the United States should instead let Russia deal with the problem.
Trump has recently faced criticism for not providing details on what sort of foreign policy positions he would take as president. That lack of specifics is purposeful and strategic, Trump said during a 50-minute speech at the Great State Fair of Oklahoma on Friday night. He said Republicans who publicly share their strategic foreign policy plans are "crazy."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Donald Trump says he would defeat ISIS by taking over the oil fields the terrorists have seized in Iraq.”
And yet, to vote for somebody else means more of the same for longer.
He’s [Trump] has spewed more foreign policy then any of the other candidates. He’s going to be a sort of isolationist, not wholly by choice. Since Obama’s abandonment to Russia will not be easy to recover from. That’s a generational change. As Trump say’s: Hell with it, let the Russians solve the problem of ISIS. We’re going to secure our southern border, and if the world decides it needs us, you have our number, bring a check book.
Except for supporting Israel and probably Egypt, and the Iran nuke problem, there aren't any clear cut principles to apply to the Middle East at present. US administrations have had many principles regarding the ME in the past few decades and what have they gotten us?
The candidates putting out all this blather concerning exactly what they'd do in the ME are oversimplifying a complicated situation just as you are.
There are no obvious solutions. We can help destroy the Islamic State, as we should, but then what will replace them? The ME is probably beyond any quick solution now and it might be best to let the various factions there fight things out and then support or not support the various winners.
A reasonably good dictator or monarchy is the best we can hope for in most of the ME.
Assad has always protected the Christians in Syria. That’s the only reason they are still alive. When the Russians exterminate Isis, the Christians will be safe.
This problem only started when Bush and Obama decided to take out the secular regimes in the region. In an “islamic democracy” the first thing they do is kill off the Christians. Sharia law is very clear about that.
Well, maybe Trump ought to just spell it out then, that his policy is "making the Middle East safe for dictators."
That is, if he really believes what you're projecting on him.
This reminds me a bit like WWII where our enemies became our friends.
If Russia wants to put serious boots on the ground and take out ISIS, I can’t help but support it right now given the state of affairs over there.
“Why do people have to be so nasty when they read something that another person writes that doesn’t agree with them?”
See: Saul Alynski
The goal is to be so nasty and insulting that they shut down the conversation. Then declare a self satisfied if pyrrhic victory.
That remark is just as useless as all your high minded blather about principles. No administration is going to apply their principles to the ME unless they are willing to put many hundreds of thousands of US troops there.
Otherwise, the best we can hope for are military dictators such Mubarak or Al Sisi in Egypt, and the various monarchs who've ruled reasonably stable nations for years.
I'm getting the picture.
No, you're distorting the picture and taking things out of context, as both the Bush and Obama administrations did with their Middle East policies.
But, have fun in your little fantasy world of principles.
May I suggest you do a private message if you do not want anyone else to comment? This is a public open forum.
You’re looking for perfection in Trump’s policies.
Trump is not mainly talking to the engaged, he’s speaking to the millions of pissed off voters. That’s why he’s leading in the polls.
There's nothing more fantastical, and chaotic, and destructive, than a world without any plumb line of principles, because all that leaves you is the shifting sand of the ever-changing, arbitrary will of men.
But if that's what you want, go for it.
Just don't act surprised when a different, totally contrary, whim strikes the Donald's fancy, next week, or next month, or next year.
But, I'm guessing that you'll probably be right there defending him, in spite of his incoherent inconsistency.
Point taken. I personally cringed at the “takeover their oil” comments a few weeks. Projecting ideas on candidates, especially a relative unknown and strong voice like Trump, is something all conservatives, who should be logical thinkers, need to watch out for. Of course, libs elected Obama based on projection.
We should sent all the liberal college students and their professors, who support zero, to clean up his mess.
I’m not looking for perfection. “Perfection” is a straw dog.
What I’m looking for are decent principles, and vision, and consistency, and coherence, and judgment, and wisdom.
Notwithstanding his seeming popularity, I’m not finding much of that with Trump. Sorry.
Thanks for such a decent, reasonable comment.
This political environment is getting less and less conducive to respectful political dialog every day, so when I read responses like yours it’s quite refreshing.
Your fantasy world. Sometimes it is not possible to apply anything that could reasonably be termed a principle.
What is our 'principle' concerning the rights of the people of Tibet to self-governance? Such as examples are endless.
Sometimes the US can follow principles in foreign policy and often we must live with the practical realities of the world. It benefits no one to live in a fantasy world.
I don't see any disconnect between the two positions.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-trumps-plan-for-islamic-state-put-a-ring-around-it-2015-8
<><><><><
Well is right now, or was he right before when he said he would put boots on the ground in Syria?
“They have great money because they have oil,” Trump said. “Every place where they have oil I would knock the hell out of them.”
“I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil,” he told MSNBC. “And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I’d put a ring around it and I’d take the oil for our country.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.