Shocking: Trump is the most reasonable on foreign policy

[Gervinho]

Donald "I would bomb the shit out of ISIS" Trump is only marginally better than the rest of the GOP.

Ok, he's not willing to put boots on the ground. But he's willing to continue to murder through bombs. It's these bombs that create anti-US animosity and fuel fanaticism.

You either kill everyone through bombing or you put boots on the ground. I really hate when these snakes say we dont need to put boots on the ground, but can use precise bombing. Why not just be honest and say you wanna flatten out everything over there

 

[IGIT]

You either kill everyone through bombing or you put boots on the ground. I really hate when these snakes say we dont need to put boots on the ground, but can use precise bombing. Why not just be honest and say you wanna flatten out everything over there

hiya Gervinho,

because since 1977, carpet bombing has been considered a war crime (Ted Cruz has not gotten this memo).

- IGIT

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I don't think there is any real evidence of this. In fact, I think it is much more accurate to argue that US drone strikes don't really increase or decrease terrorism much. There may be other reasons to stop interfering, but acting like bombing has a cause and effect relationship with terrorism is not true.

It's hard- probably impossible- to measure because concepts like "terrorism" and "extremists" and others are so hard to measure but just using a bit of common sense would tell you that it has an effect.

I mean, "get the infidels off our land" is a rallying cry for them. Hostility for Western aggression overall is a big motivator so while the US doesn't have a big troop presence there anymore, the bombing and killing of civilians is not going to go unnoticed.

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

I know we've gotten to the point where we think Middle Eastern lives don't count as much but really, 1,000 dead is a huge number. Over here, we flip out when 8 of our occupying, invading soldiers are killed. Imagine getting killed in your own hometown simply for living next to someone that they think could be a terrorist?

If you were trying to round up support for an anti-Western movement, wouldn't you exploit the hell out of this very real thing? You'd be nuts not to.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

It's hard- probably impossible- to measure because concepts like "terrorism" and "extremists" and others are so hard to measure but just using a bit of common sense would tell you that it has an effect.

I mean, "get the infidels off our land" is a rallying cry for them. Hostility for Western aggression overall is a big motivator so while the US doesn't have a big troop presence there anymore, the bombing and killing of civilians is not going to go unnoticed.

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

I know we've gotten to the point where we think Middle Eastern lives don't count as much but really, 1,000 dead is a huge number. Over here, we flip out when 8 of our occupying, invading soldiers are killed. Imagine getting killed in your own hometown simply for living next to someone that they think could be a terrorist?

If you were trying to round up support for an anti-Western movement, wouldn't you exploit the hell out of this very real thing? You'd be nuts not to.

What lands were the infidels on before 9/11?

Didn't Osama Bin Laden come up with his plots because the US came to the defense of Saudi Arabia at the request of their government?

 

[Renard]

Trump keeps saying take all their oil. But as usual no explanation on how he intends to take control of these facilities, rebuild them, operate them safely, protect them from angry locals, establish safe supply routes. It would require boots on the ground and more.

He lives in a simplistic fantasy world. A fantasy where foreign powers sign deals that only favour the US. A fantasy where you build and make Mexico pay for an enormous 2000 mile wall. A universe in which deporting 10-20M illegals wouldn't cost $500 billion and tank the economy.

His off-the-cuff attitude and honesty is refreshing, I understand why people like him. But an honest idiot is still an idiot.

 

[Denter]

It's hard- probably impossible- to measure because concepts like "terrorism" and "extremists" and others are so hard to measure but just using a bit of common sense would tell you that it has an effect.

I mean, "get the infidels off our land" is a rallying cry for them. Hostility for Western aggression overall is a big motivator so while the US doesn't have a big troop presence there anymore, the bombing and killing of civilians is not going to go unnoticed.

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

I know we've gotten to the point where we think Middle Eastern lives don't count as much but really, 1,000 dead is a huge number. Over here, we flip out when 8 of our occupying, invading soldiers are killed. Imagine getting killed in your own hometown simply for living next to someone that they think could be a terrorist?

If you were trying to round up support for an anti-Western movement, wouldn't you exploit the hell out of this very real thing? You'd be nuts not to.

Right, that was OBL's big thing in the 90s, but we aren't on their land any longer- and when we were in Iraq, drone strikes were in their infancy. I don't think there is any evidence that drone strikes in northern Pakistan did anything negative to our efforts there- like you said, the fight was going to continue while we were on the ground, no matter what. If anything, it just killed more high level guys than anything else.

And in the case of IS, I find it difficult to believe that the US offering airpower to support either the Syrian state or whatever non IS extremists we are allied with is going to do much of anything to turn otherwise peaceful people into terrorists.

 

[Denter]

Trump keeps saying take all their oil. But as usual no explanation on how he intends to take control of these facilities, rebuild them, operate them safely, protect them from angry locals, establish safe supply routes. It would require boots on the ground and more.

He lives in a simplistic fantasy world. A fantasy where foreign powers sign deals that only favour the US. A fantasy where you build and make Mexico pay for an enormous 2000 mile wall. A universe in which deporting 10-20M illegals wouldn't cost $500 billion and tank the economy.

His off-the-cuff attitude and honesty is refreshing, I understand why people like him. But an honest idiot is still an idiot.

Nope, deporting the illegals would be cheap, and wouldn't require a wall nor many extra agents. The wall is just the psychological thing.

I think he is correct about immigration, which is really why most people support him.

 

[The Diplomat]

Trump is no different from any other politician. He says what he has to say now. If he gets in power he will be told what to do just like all the other ones

Blaming Bush for 9/11 isn't going to win him over many moderates or conservatives.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

What lands were the infidels on before 9/11?

Didn't Osama Bin Laden come up with his plots because the US came to the defense of Saudi Arabia at the request of their government?

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

People like to focus on the silly religious and moral stuff but ignore the huge list that describe real geopolitical events and aggression on the part of the West. If the geopolitical stuff wasn't true then yeah, we could accurately say that "hate us" because of religious fanaticism. But the aggression stuff is 100% true.

Right, that was OBL's big thing in the 90s, but we aren't on their land any longer- and when we were in Iraq, drone strikes were in their infancy. I don't think there is any evidence that drone strikes in northern Pakistan did anything negative to our efforts there- like you said, the fight was going to continue while we were on the ground, no matter what. If anything, it just killed more high level guys than anything else.

And in the case of IS, I find it difficult to believe that the US offering airpower to support either the Syrian state or whatever non IS extremists we are allied with is going to do much of anything to turn otherwise peaceful people into terrorists.

There are fewer boots on the ground but US presence is there. If they're not ok with infidels literally in their country, they're also not going to be ok with infidels' drones bombing and killing their civilians. If you're a propagandist looking to recruit, you're going to jump all over the reports of deaths in northern Pakistan as proof of Western aggression towards you (and Allah or whatever).

And supporting internal forces might not get us immediate results, but it's the best we can do. It's already proven that just smashing everything up creates monsters.

 

[Renard]

Nope, deporting the illegals would be cheap, and wouldn't require a wall nor many extra agents. The wall is just the psychological thing.

I think he is correct about immigration, which is really why most people support him.

Sarcastic or just that naive? I don't think you appreciate how complex moving millions of people is. There are entire countries with less population than the number of illegals in the US.

Based on an analysis for 5 million people, the Centre for American Progress estimates that a mass deportation from the US would cost an average of $10,070 (£6,624) per person. For 11.3 million people, that's $114bn (£75bn).

And that would cover only the basic operational costs - apprehension, detention, legal processing, and deportation. According to the AAF, the total cost of a 20-year mass deportation programme would be somewhere between $420 and $620 billion.

But we're not finished yet, there's still the impact on the economy. The AAF report, published earlier this year, estimates that undocumented immigrants made up 6.4% of the country's labour force - about 11 million workers - in 2014.

It predicts that deporting all of those workers would shrink the US economy by nearly 6%, or $1.6 trillion, by 2035.

Are you seeing these numbers? You're looking at a loss of $2 trillion over 20 years. Not to mention the human cost of ripping apart millions of families. And for what? The illegals haven't caused any particular social or economic problems. You'd be wasting all this money deporting them for absolutely no reason other than as a matter of principle. It's incredibly stupid.

 

[Bukowski82]

Blaming Bush for 9/11 isn't going to win him over many moderates or conservatives.

The more I listen to Bush speak, the more I realize that he truly believed in what he was doing. So essentially, he was just stupid and inept rather than actually evil.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

People like to focus on the silly religious and moral stuff but ignore the huge list that describe real geopolitical events and aggression on the part of the West. If the geopolitical stuff wasn't true then yeah, we could accurately say that "hate us" because of religious fanaticism. But the aggression stuff is 100% true.




There are fewer boots on the ground but US presence is there. If they're not ok with infidels literally in their country, they're also not going to be ok with infidels' drones bombing and killing their civilians. If you're a propagandist looking to recruit, you're going to jump all over the reports of deaths in northern Pakistan as proof of Western aggression towards you (and Allah or whatever).

And supporting internal forces might not get us immediate results, but it's the best we can do. It's already proven that just smashing everything up creates monsters.

ok

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

 

[Denter]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

People like to focus on the silly religious and moral stuff but ignore the huge list that describe real geopolitical events and aggression on the part of the West. If the geopolitical stuff wasn't true then yeah, we could accurately say that "hate us" because of religious fanaticism. But the aggression stuff is 100% true.




There are fewer boots on the ground but US presence is there. If they're not ok with infidels literally in their country, they're also not going to be ok with infidels' drones bombing and killing their civilians. If you're a propagandist looking to recruit, you're going to jump all over the reports of deaths in northern Pakistan as proof of Western aggression towards you (and Allah or whatever).

And supporting internal forces might not get us immediate results, but it's the best we can do. It's already proven that just smashing everything up creates monsters.

Well that's true, anyway. Best to work with the monsters already there, instead.

 

[n...not crazy]

A good little exercise for all of the candidates (well... for yourself) is - imagine them 1 v 1 with Putin for a day.
In that game I'll take Trump.

Def won't take Bernie, lol

 

[Denter]

Sarcastic or just that naive? I don't think you appreciate how complex moving millions of people is. There are entire countries with less population than the number of illegals in the US.



Are you seeing these numbers? You're looking at a loss of $2 trillion over 20 years. Not to mention the human cost of ripping apart millions of families. And for what? The illegals haven't caused any particular social or economic problems. You'd be wasting all this money deporting them for absolutely no reason other than as a matter of principle. It's incredibly stupid.

lololol of course the center for progress or whatever says that, but deportation would not be neccessary. And yes, illegals have caused many, many social and economic problems. Don't be daft.

The easy way to get them all to self deport is to just force compliance on businesses to verify American citizenship. The infrastructure to report this already exists as employers do their 941 taxes each quarter, and most states have monthly unemployment insurance reporting. Just make the verification mandatory.

Failure to do so would result in a non-dischargeable fine tothe business and its shareholders and officers. Actually knowingly employing an illegal would result in even larger fines (say, 100k per offense) on the principals of a business, which also would be non-dischargeable to those people and would apply personally. As an additional motivator, the government could pay whistleblowers a percentage of the fines collected. That would keep all the old Fox News watching people employed snitching on Home Depot-dwellers and taco trucks.

Once businesses realize there is actual enforcement, you go to phase 2: make getting any federal or state benefit contingent on proving US citizenship. This again costs basically nothing.

If they are unable to work, and unable to receive benefits, they will leave. No mass roundups or walls necessary. Of course, the reason no one proposes this is because the Republicans don't actually want them to leave.

 

[IGIT]

Trump keeps saying take all their oil. But as usual no explanation on how he intends to take control of these facilities, rebuild them, operate them safely, protect them from angry locals, establish safe supply routes. It would require boots on the ground and more.

He lives in a simplistic fantasy world. A fantasy where foreign powers sign deals that only favour the US. A fantasy where you build and make Mexico pay for an enormous 2000 mile wall. A universe in which deporting 10-20M illegals wouldn't cost $500 billion and tank the economy.

His off-the-cuff attitude and honesty is refreshing, I understand why people like him. But an honest idiot is still an idiot.

hi Renard,

i don't disagree that Mr. Trump lives in a fantasy world...but then again, many of the contestants for POTUS occupy a similar space.

both Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton speak about initiatives that have absolutely no chance in getting through congress. Mr. Cruz has an evangelical zeal that might have legs in Iowa, but stand little chance in getting implemented nationally....Mr. Rubio has a streak of neocon fervor that few Americans would be willing to bankroll, you know?

i liked your last sentence, and i think its very spot on - yet its undeniable that there is a simplicity to Trump's proposals (which are essential free of any details) that many Americans seem to be gravitating towards.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Blaming Bush for 9/11 isn't going to win him over many moderates or conservatives.

hello The Diplomat,

i think you may be offbase here.

it will certainly win him moderates as far as the electorate goes.

as for conservatives? Mr. Trump isn't relying on conservatives to win the nomination. if there's one thing you can be sure of, its that the phenomenon that is Trump makes plain what many have known to be true; a large slice of the GOP electorate doesn't care about conservatism.

- IGIT

 

[The Diplomat]

hello The Diplomat,

i think you may be offbase here.

it will certainly win him moderates as far as the electorate goes.

as for conservatives? Mr. Trump isn't relying on conservatives to win the nomination. if there's one thing you can be sure of, its that the phenomenon that is Trump makes plain what many have known to be true; a large slice of the GOP electorate doesn't care about conservatism.

- IGIT

Well, personally, I don't see how Bush can be blamed for 9/11. We can blame him for the war in Iraq, and all that came from that, but just because something happens under a President's term doesn't necessarily mean that it was his fault. There's a reason why "post-9/11 world" became an actual term. And I don't see how a moderate with middle of the spectrum views can blame Bush for 9/11, or agree with those who say it was his fault. The very meaning of moderate is someone who isn't extreme, partisan or radical. If they go with Trump for the trolols, I can see that, or because they are "angry at the establishment", but not because he's blaming Bush for 9/11. And I'm NOT a fan of Bush, I think he was a pretty terrible president.

 

[Gervinho]

Blaming Bush for 9/11 isn't going to win him over many moderates or conservatives.

It is because its the truth. Trump talk shit about liberals and conservatives. Also once he wins the nomination, all the conservative will vote for him as they hate Hillary more than the devil.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Bush made the mistake to concentrate on Iraq, when Saddam and Osama hated each other's guts. Saddam was no friend of the US but he was the enemy of our fiercest enemy. But Bush removed him and handed the whole Country to Islamic extremists. He de-stabilized the Middle East, he created a recruiting camp, breeding ground and safe haven for our enemies and he diverted attention and resources from the much more important war in Afghanistan to the war of choice in Iraq.

Trump seemed to be the only one who called this.

Show me the quotes where Trump said all of that??


We only found one instance where Trump discussed the war before it started. On Jan. 28, 2003, just under three months before the invasion, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto asked Trump whether President George W. Bush should be more focused on Iraq or the economy.


Speaking of Iraq, Trump said, "Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-overstates-his-early-opposition-iraq-/