Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

President Trump delivers Foreign Policy Address

bbedward

By bbedward
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

oh? maybe that's the more interesting part of the video then. Maybe that empty podium gets you thinking existentially about what's it's all aboot. Than Trump shows up and it's back to "where am I?".

 

 

Trump's foreign policy is very Ron Paul-esque. Rand was similar too, but everyone likes his father much more.

 

It almost sounds like Ron Paul wrote half his speech truthfully.

 

---

 

Basically:

- America First

- No to Globalism (he actually said globalism)

- No more nation building

- Coalition to fight Isis

- 4/28 NATO members pay the required 2% GDP on defense spending

- Work out fair deals with Russia and China, "leave it on the table" if necessary

 

 

Much more detail too, but it's 10000x better than the neocon warmongering policies of the last few decades and beyond.

 

He's also talked about "audit the fed" (not in this speech) - which is also a very Ron Paul thing to say.

 

I'd like a Trump/Rand ticket but I'm not so sure it'd be that good strategically speaking. Someone like Jim Webb (who was in attendance of the speech I think - and has said he'd support Trump over Hillary) would probably straight guarantee Trump the presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted
Trump’s ‘Foreign Policy’: Incoherent and Shallow
Donald Trump complained today that the United States has “lacked a coherent foreign policy” since the end of the Cold War. His vow that a Trump administration would impose coherence is about as credible as his vow to make Mexico pay for his fantasy wall. Indeed, the foreign-policy speech was itself incoherent . . . quite apart from the fact that, just the blink of an eye ago, Trump was enthusiastically supporting — with his tongue and his wallet — the very policies he now bemoans. Let’s just consider American actions in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, which Trump blamed for helping to “unleash ISIS.”
There is some validity in Trump’s 20–20 hindsight. In Libya, for example, based on policy spearheaded by then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration switched sides in a jihad: toppling Moammar Qaddafi, whom our government was then funding and describing as a key counterterrorism ally. The beneficiaries of this shift were rabidly anti-American Islamists in Libya, including jihadist factions about which Qaddafi had been feeding us intelligence. As Senator Ted Cruz (whom I support) has repeatedly pointed out, the easily foreseeable result of the Clinton/Obama policy has been Libya’s transformation into a terrorist safe haven, which is now a stronghold for both ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Actually, though, we should call it the Clinton/Obama/Trump policy. You see, while conservative Republicans (like your humble correspondent) were pleading that we should stay out of Libya — that we should avoid siding with, arming, and training the “rebel” forces (the popular Washington euphemism for the Libyan mujahideen) — Donald Trump was squarely on the wrong side, demanding that Obama take action to overthrow Qaddafi.

 

Here is Trump in 2011 — at a point when Obama had not yet acted, and when it was abundantly clear that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood were the backbone of Qaddafi’s opposition:

 

I can’t believe what our country is doing. Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all [over] the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is, it’s a carnage. . . . You talk about of things that have happened in history, this could be one of the worst. Now we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re gonna end up with something like you’ve never seen before.

 

This was exactly the line pushed by Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat Trump has heavily funded (including a whopping $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation) and whom he praised — a year after Qaddafi’s overthrow, while jihadists were running wild and attacking Western targets — for doing a “a good job” as secretary of state. It was also the line pushed by such GOP establishment progressives as Senator John McCain, the Republican politician Trump has most heavily funded, who described the Libyan “rebels” in Benghazi as “my heroes” — right before they predictably went from murdering Qaddafi to murdering Americans. Today, Libya is a failed state, a jihadist haven that threatens Western Europe, precisely because President Obama followed Donald Trump’s advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted
Trump also blamed the rise of ISIS on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Since the start of his presidential campaign, and yet again in his speech today, Trump has portrayed himself as a prescient but lonely dissenter from the decision to remove Saddam Hussein — notwithstanding that there was a far better case for ousting Saddam, an American enemy who was supporting terrorists and in gross violation of U.N. resolutions, than for the Qaddafi ouster that Trump ardently supported.
But Trump is not being honest. In a September 2002 interview, while military action against Saddam Hussein was being debated, Trump said he not only supported the prospect of invading Iraq but “wish[ed] the first time it was done correctly” — an obvious reference to the 1991 Gulf War. That is, Trump believed the real mistake was failing to invade Iraq eleven years earlier.
In the event, once our forces had expelled the Iraqi army from Kuwait in 1991, President George H. W. Bush did consider Trump’s recommended course. He opted not to send our troops into Baghdad to remove Saddam, though, because he feared destabilizing the combustible region — Saddam’s Iraq being a counterweight to the equally loathsome Iranian regime. That is, Bush followed the policy Trump now claims to favor but condemned when it was actually followed. And of course, Trump only condemned it eleven years after the fact, because Saddam was still a problem . . . which Trump first thought the second President Bush should remove . . . but then condemned Bush for removing. Got that?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434660/donald-trump-foreign-policy-incoherent-shallow

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OBF posted an article that criticized Trump for criticizing the Iraq war.

 

Trump has always had the same type of idea on this stuff, he's talked about America first forever

 

I'd rather have OBF tell me what be doesn't like in his own words.

 

Neocons starting wars is not very Christian, so he should be up your alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

OBF posted an article that criticized Trump for criticizing the Iraq war.

 

Trump has always had the same type of idea on this stuff, he's talked about America first forever

 

I'd rather have OBF tell me what be doesn't like in his own words.

 

Neocons starting wars is not very Christian, so he should be up your alley

 

Trump has been all over the map on these issues to the point he seems almost unstable. The only way to confront someone like this is to confront them with their own words. Trump was for the Iraq war before he was against it. Trump was for taking out Khadaffi in Libya before he was against it.

 

‘It was as PAINFUL for Trump to GIVE that speech as it was for us to HEAR IT’ – Military analyst

 

 

CNN’s military analyst and former Lt. General Mark Hertling said that he was ready and eager to seriously analyze Trump’s foreign policy speech as a former military member, but Trump lost him completely in the first five minutes.

Watch below as he explains:

 

http://therightscoop.com/it-was-as-painful-for-trump-to-give-that-speech-as-it-was-for-us-to-hear-it-military-analyst/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's ridiculous really, he says everything the American people have wanted to hear for years in regards to foreign policy - being advised by a team led by Jeff Sessions, and the establishment hates it.

 

Hopefully the people aren't dumb this year and are willing to vote for somebody who finally wants to hold other nations accountable and stop nation building.

 

---

 

And fyi Trump was never for the Iraq war. They say he wasn't "strongly against" it before it happened. Really there's only 1 interview on tape and he's non-committal and skirts around it.

 

He was vehemently outspoken against it shortly after, however - so he was still very opposed to it for years and years.

 

He's also wasn't a politician, so it's not like he has much of an audit trail.

 

Cruz and Clinton however do have audit trails, and you can see that they're typical neocon war hawks who want to start a war with Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

(UPDATED WITH MORE) PROOF. Donald Trump Lies When He Says He Opposed the Iraq War

By: streiff (Diary) | February 19th, 2016 at 01:30 PM |

 

 

But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion.

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

 

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he was against the Iraq War before it began, despite no evidence of him publicly stating this position. On Meet the Press, Trump said there weren’t many articles about his opposition because he wasn’t a politician at the time.

“Well, I did it in 2003, I said it before that,” Trump said of his opposition to invading Iraq. “Don’t forget, I wasn’t a politician. So people didn’t write everything I said. I was a businessperson. I was, as they say, a world-class businessperson. I built a great company, I employed thousands of people. So I’m not a politician. But if you look at 2003, there are articles. If you look in 2004, there are articles.”

 

Well, now it has been checked out and these are the facts. In 1999, Donald Trump expressed the opinion that invading Iraq would be necessary if they kept evading their obligations under the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Let me say that was a logical and sensible position to take. In 2002, he says he was in favor of invading Iraq because the job had not been done right the first time. It was only after his liberal social circle started opposing the war that he, too, became an opponent of the war.

 

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/19/proof.-donald-trump-lies-says-opposed-iraq-war/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

I don't have that big of a problem with someone who was for the Iraq war under two conditions...1) They acknowledge it was a disaster and 2) don't try to pawn themselves off as having been against it at the time. If Trump had just said from the beginning look at the time from the info we in the public were privy too...I was for it. Knowing now what we know I probably would not be and frankly i'm done with this nation building nonsense. But Trump can't do that...he HAS to come off golden in every sngle fucking situation and it makes him come off like the biggest douche in American political history. This is why I can't stand him and would vote for fucking Ralph Nader over this assclown. It simply astonishes me how ill advised Trump is by the people around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So his story is just not true in any way, shape, or form. What makes it worse is that he’s been lying about his own record to attempt to harm other candidates for months:

 

1 - no. You're taking 1 barely committed quote from a Howard Stern interview.

 

Redstate and NR are the two most biased right wing sources there are when it comes to Trump too.

 

Cruz and his wife were part of the team that pioneered the shit show in Iraq.

 

In late 2003, early 2004 Trump talked about how it was a disaster and whatever came into power after Saddam would be much, much worse. "it wont be a happy democracy"

 

Hillary wants a war with the rooskies? Not a fan of her but that's news to me.

 

I consider all of them who want to continue funding the moderate terrorists against Assad, set up no fly zones where Russia is currently flying - to be interested in pushing towards war with Russia, it's already a proxy war that should stop - at the very least under most of the candidates it would turn into another cold war.

 

 

Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Trump are the only ones that have had an acceptable approach to foreign policy.

 

Ron+Rand Paul and Trump have nearly identical foreign policies, which are basically "America First."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

this is my biggest red flag with Trump....look how annoying Obama and the dems are in not being able to acknowledge that maybe this green light on Syrian refugees was a tad hasty. Trump is 1000x worse, he doubles down on the most insignificant of errors so I have zero confidence that if he makes a mistake as president he has ANY capacity whatsoever to reverse or even slightly alter anything. His ego won't allow it. The guy has a god complex the likes of which we may have never witnessed in modern times.....like old fucking Nero or Caligula this guy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

and he doesn't have to lie, at all. He was not a politician at the time and he was in NY when 9/11 happened, got swept up in the fervor and bought the lies/half truths that the bush admin put out. Clean, golden. The fact he still refuses to acknowledge and deficit in judgement whatsoever even when handed vastly incomplete info.......just a major major red flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
  • Author
Posted

and he doesn't have to lie, at all. He was not a politician at the time and he was in NY when 9/11 happened, got swept up in the fervor and bought the lies/half truths that the bush admin put out. Clean, golden. The fact he still refuses to acknowledge and deficit in judgement whatsoever even when handed vastly incomplete info.......just a major major red flag.

 

He did acknowledge it, and said "I wasn't a politician maybe I said it or I didn't, I wasn't used to getting asked those questions - but I was against it leading up to the war and immediately after it started" or something like that. Which as far as anybody knows, is completely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...