Posted on 03/29/2016 9:23:28 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
Trump's foreign policy often gets discussed as isolationist for its skepticism of allies and foreign entanglements, or as realist for its obsession with self-interest and with cold cost-benefit. In either case, the theory is meant to explain why Trump so disdains virtually every facet of America's international role, from its alliance networks to its foreign military bases and security guarantees.
But the more you hear from Trump, the clearer it becomes that something else is going on: He either does not believe in or simply does not understand the international order that has governed the world since the end of World War II.
This comes through in Trump's declaration that postwar alliance systems such as NATO are "obsolete."
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
When someone says:
“I did my best to understand Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Here’s what I came up with.”
I presupposes that the author thinks his opinion has value. What arrogance!
Planes? Hell that could mean a private Cessna? Next time project Boats and Trains into it also!-) Go Trump Go!
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of the cost of NATO.
We do get to maintain a number of bases in Europe.
You make a great Trump supporter, rock on Garth....
More like Ted:-) Wang Bang and all that good stuff:-)
Donald Trump: 736 Ted Cruz: 463
Let’s see:
1) The present administration has intervened everywhere possible in the Middle East on the side of Islamicists and America’s enemies (pretty much the same people), resulting in Egypt having a Moslem Brotherhood government - and then not, in a counter-revolution; in a continuing bloody civil war in Syria, which caused literally millions to leave (including a lot of “victims of the Syrian civil war” from Africa to migrate to Europe and the US - why vet them, after all) - and nearly coming to blows with the Russians in the process; giving up $150 billion of frozen assets and inspections of nuclear facilities to Iran, etc., etc., etc. IOW, an utter disaster, which would only be worse if we actually got nuked by the Norks or Iran.
2. G. W. Bush and his nation-building adventurism in Iraq - thousands of dead, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, and over $1 trillion of treasure wasted...for nothing.
3. Clinton - showed weakness everywhere, especially toward the Islamic threat, resulting in the planning of the most massive attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor shortly after he left office.
Hey, what’s not to like about that uber-successful foreign policy (said no one, EVER)?
Enter Donald Trump, a man so “stupid” that he turned a $1 million loan into well over $1 billion before inheriting anything from his father. He takes a look at that foreign policy, sees the richest and most technologically-advanced nation on the planet winning exactly nowhere at any time since 1945 (with the small exception of a tremendous battlefield success in 1991 with 1/2 million men armed well enough to take on the Soviet Union at its peak power, against a worn-out, ill-educated and badly led Arab force that had no air assets to speak of and no space assets whatsoever - and which we threw away in a matter of weeks by letting an insane butcher gas and machine gun tens of thousands of Kurds, whom WE encouraged to revolt. This “stupid” man evaluates the last 70 years of history, and most particularly the last 23, and decides repeating what failed yet again would be insane.
Instead, he decides, instead of more of the same, that maybe we should do the following:
1) Actually increase the combat capabilities of our armed forces;
2) Not dissipate such increased combat capabilities by wasting them piecemeal in a bunch of civil, tribal or regional wars where we have exactly no vital interest;
3) Not seek to piss off the Russians (still our chief adversary, if only from the P.O.V. of capabilities), but instead to get together with its leadership and essentially carve out spheres of influence beyond which neither power will venture, thus considerably reducing the risk of a very bloody and costly conflict that could possibly escalate to the nuclear level;
4) Confront our true enemies, such as Iran, with a correlation of forces (military, economic and diplomatic) that are so overwhelming that the enemies simply MUST back down;
5) Backing and supporting our allies where feasible;
6) Making those of our allies who can afford to pay for some of the forces that we maintain TO DEFEND THEM actually pay us for defending them. This is NOT disengagement, this is a sensible policy of getting reimbursed for spending money on someone else’s behalf. We could have lower spending and taxes (both, easily) if we weren’t spending literally a couple hundred billion/year on the wealthy Europeans, Japanese and Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms.
How is that anything BUT a sensible foreign policy? Why is it sensible to continue to be interventionist everywhere, all the time, and all on our own backs (while, I might add, having one of the most profligate welfare states ever in history). You cannot have ever heard of imperial overstretch and favor our present and past policies. You have to be utterly ignorant of the history of humanity, most particularly the Roman Empire, to favor more of the same. You must be ignorant of economics to favor continuing to spend MORE than drunken sailors on wealthy friends who can afford to reimburse you. You must be ignorant of human nature to not understand that intervening in every corner of the globe makes Americans the single most hated nationality (well, maybe right after Israelis) and, thus, a prime target for terrorism.
In short, Donald J. Trump has seen the long- and short-term insanity of our foreign and defense policies, and come up with a plan to reverse course in many areas. WTF is wrong with that?
He can paint his name in hundred foot tall letters on his buildings, he’s free to do so. However, the rest of us are all free to note that he’s obviously a narcissist.
This is just conjecture. According to Vox, Trump might as well not actually swear in and be president since Vox can just call the shots with their clairvoyant know-it-all conclusions.
Certainly.
You said we could not sell aircraft to Iran, I illustrated that in fact we can. Gulfstream, Cessna, Lear, and suppliers are already selling to individuals in Iran, we are selling repair and replacement parts for Boeing aircraft, and negotiations are ongoing for military applications. I work in the field, we deal with it every day.
You are incorrect. It was approved in January 2016. If you want to claim high ground on a technicality on a single aspect, but certainly not the complete picture, that is your issue, not mine. I proved your premise incorrect, and your refutation included clips that continued to prove you wrong. I have not found anything yet, on the financing issues you mentioned, but continue to look. Perhaps you can provide a link...thanks in advance.
The nuclear sanctions have been lifted, and the sale of commercial aircraft are allowed. But the U.S. is keeping some sanctions against Iran in place that are linked to human rights issues and terrrorism. Pilarski says Boeing would need to clarify a number of things before working out a deal.
“There are various complicated legal issues that many lawyers have to go through,” he says, adding “For example, could any of the technology on the new aircraft be used for military purposes?”
Even if it doesn’t sell planes, Boeing could make a lot of money another way. Many of those old jets that Iran is still flying are in desperate need of Boeing parts and maintenance, Aboulafia says
Seriously only a blithering idiot sees a person that does that as some negative.
It’s the name of his company, his brand, and HIS building.
Don’t like it, then have Cruz introduce a bill in the senate banning it because it hurts some special snowflakes to see it.
“Don’t like it, then have Cruz introduce a bill in the senate banning it ...”
I don’t want to ban it. We have freedom in this country, and Trump is free to be a narcissist if he wants to.
http://corporatejetinvestor.com/articles/iran-business-jet-market-098/
Bell Helicopter, Cessna for Crop Duster applications as well, and where is the human rights issues you discussed.
“If sanctions are removed I think it will take three months for the first business jet sale.”
The article was September 2015
What an arrogant thing to say, shame on you. I read that there were alleged human rights issues, which means that they were not confirmed. I asked what specific issues you were talking about? None are covered in the article.
When you post, it is directed at everybody, otherwise its a private post. Your statements were Aircraft. That is a very wide field. Airbus is already selling to Iran. Boeing has already repaired 3 aircraft engines, and is selling parts for repairs. Other US aircraft are being sold, and leased.
Trump did not say we cannot sell aircraft, Max Fischer, of Vox did, Trump was surprised and stated “How stupid is that”, you presume he was unaware of the business that is happening in Iran, and what can and cannot be done there.
You might be right, but I don’t think so. I think that Trump knows far more than what you think.
You have a preconceived notion about Trump, it appears. And that is fine. I don’t happen to agree with it.
As you did not post this thread. I would presume we BOTH jumped into the conversation.
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.