Trump's foreign policy speech

Trump, based on his policy speech, seems less inclined to use force haphazardly. But when it is used there should be a clear path to victory. The only people who would disagree with that, especially after the last 15 years, won't like anything Trump has to say---because he's Trump lol.

He also used a TelePrompTer for the second time. If I was his advisor I'd counsel sticking to it because he can come off as 'presidential' as anyone in the field.

I also like his 'not going for the false song of globalism bit'. Trump is right: we always seem to come up on the short end of the stick on some of these trade treaties. Screw that, let's get back to putting American interests first.

Overall, I think his speech was pretty good and has an excellent chance of persuading the undecideds.

You think it was good, even though it was full of inaccuracies and contradictions, excuse while I chuckle.
 
You're hung up on the secret plan lol. I took a few minutes to read the speech and after digesting it I'm bumping it up from pretty good to excellent. There are legitimate criticisms to parts of it but people can no longer say Trump lacks a foreign policy vision---whether they agree with it is another matter.

He questions some of the assumptions liberals have been shouting about since the Bush years: how some parts of the world just aren't amenable to democracy and how instead of radical change in the region we should focus instead on stabilizing it. I don't agree with the NATO bit myself: on the other hand, NATO is a relic and why shouldn't we re-examine it to see how it can be tweaked.

On the face of it, this should appeal to a lot of people.

Again, you think inaccuracies, and contradictions are excellent, you make me laugh.
 
If the US army were able to defeat ISIS, don't you think that they would be advising Obama that they have a sure fire plan to defeat ISIS. I fail to see what Trump will do to bring this about that the military has not already considered. They are going to inform him that he is an idiot.

If we don't support Japan, why should we support Israel?

U.S. officials beginning with Obama have repeatedly stressed that the U.S. mission is not to contain ISIS but to “defeat” and “destroy” it. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has twice stated that we are “at war” with ISIS. And given the group’s potential for mayhem, this policy is wise. Yet 18 months after the first U.S. troops were ordered to Iraq to counter ISIS, the group has neither been defeated nor, according recently to Carter and JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford, even contained.

More remarkable is that the United States arguably has the means to destroy the group

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-01-04/how-defeat-isis

[url]http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/war-on-is/2016/01/14/pentagon-strategy-islamic-state-iraq-syria/78269180/

[/URL]
 
There are links galore for this. Here is just one:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/07/politics/obama-isis-speech/

Usually, "I don't recall" doesn't cut it when it comes to ascertaining facts. Google is pretty quick & easy for some research.

The President gave his most direct and detailed assessment of ISIS since the terrorist group has brutally decapitated two American journalists and killed thousands of Iraqis. It is a vastly different message than he gave nearly two weeks ago, when he said the U.S. didn't have a strategy "yet" to deal with ISIS in Syria, and in January, when he called it and other groups the JV team.
"Well, they're not a JV team," Obama said in Sunday's "Meet the Press" interview.

lol

"some offense"

Real details there, yeah, so much better than Trump.
 
The President gave his most direct and detailed assessment of ISIS since the terrorist group has brutally decapitated two American journalists and killed thousands of Iraqis. It is a vastly different message than he gave nearly two weeks ago, when he said the U.S. didn't have a strategy "yet" to deal with ISIS in Syria, and in January, when he called it and other groups the JV team.
"Well, they're not a JV team," Obama said in Sunday's "Meet the Press" interview.

lol

"some offense"

Real details there, yeah, so much better than Trump.

Well, I posted previously on all of the details that Obama has released to date. You pretty much ignored that post, and seem to be going out of your way to discredit any actual facts & links that I'm posting.

Because yeah - it IS so much better than Trump. And I don't even think Obama is good on foreign policy. But he's detailed, and understands world affairs. Trump comes across like a child. He is hopelessly naive. His speech yesterday was meandering & full of contradictions. But his supporters love that stuff.
 
No one’s fears are likely to be allayed by this speech, which was clearly worked up by his new campaign advisers and read from a teleprompter.

It did not exhibit much grasp of the complexity of the world, understanding of the balance or exercise of power, or even a careful reading of history.

When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when one’s experience is limited to real estate deals, everything looks like a lease negotiation.

Hearing Trump describe his approach to foreign relations, one imagines a group of nations sitting at a table with him at its head, rather like a scene from “The Apprentice,” with him demanding more money, more troops and policy changes in exchange for American protection, trade and friendship.

And if he doesn’t get what he wants? “In negotiation, you must be willing to walk,” Trump said.

This unilateral approach makes for good television, but this is the real world, in which other nations have agendas, too.

Trump says he is “going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence.”

How will he gain cooperation for his “unpredictable” war on the Islamic State while enforcing a “pause” that prevents Muslims from entering this country, and forcing those living here to register themselves?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/opinion/donald-trump-to-world-im-willing-to-walk.html
 
The kind of stabilization that Trump is talking about is nation-building. We're talking about a long-term presence.

I get that you're looking for a gotcha, but I'm not necessarily opposed to those kinds of actions. My point was more that Trump contradicted himself all over the place yesterday. Every military guy who I saw interviewed after that speech agreed w/ that assessment, as well.

Then I must have missed the part where Trump talked about "long term presence".....if you tell me it was there....
 
Then I must have missed the part where Trump talked about "long term presence".....if you tell me it was there....

I must have missed the part where stabilizing a region like the Middle East could be done quickly and with a short-term presence.

I just love that you're a Trump guy, already. That didn't take long.
 
U.S. officials beginning with Obama have repeatedly stressed that the U.S. mission is not to contain ISIS but to “defeat” and “destroy” it. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has twice stated that we are “at war” with ISIS. And given the group’s potential for mayhem, this policy is wise. Yet 18 months after the first U.S. troops were ordered to Iraq to counter ISIS, the group has neither been defeated nor, according recently to Carter and JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford, even contained.

More remarkable is that the United States arguably has the means to destroy the group

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-01-04/how-defeat-isis

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...n-strategy-islamic-state-iraq-syria/78269180/

The objective has always been to defeat and destroy ISIS, but the problem is that you can not use conventional methods and that is what Trump wants to do and that is where Trump's plan will fall flat.
 
No one’s fears are likely to be allayed by this speech, which was clearly worked up by his new campaign advisers and read from a teleprompter.

It did not exhibit much grasp of the complexity of the world, understanding of the balance or exercise of power, or even a careful reading of history.

When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when one’s experience is limited to real estate deals, everything looks like a lease negotiation.

Hearing Trump describe his approach to foreign relations, one imagines a group of nations sitting at a table with him at its head, rather like a scene from “The Apprentice,” with him demanding more money, more troops and policy changes in exchange for American protection, trade and friendship.

And if he doesn’t get what he wants? “In negotiation, you must be willing to walk,” Trump said.

This unilateral approach makes for good television, but this is the real world, in which other nations have agendas, too.

Trump says he is “going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence.”

How will he gain cooperation for his “unpredictable” war on the Islamic State while enforcing a “pause” that prevents Muslims from entering this country, and forcing those living here to register themselves?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/opinion/donald-trump-to-world-im-willing-to-walk.html

Exactly, he has already alienated the group he needs to help defeat ISIS.
 
The objective has always been to defeat and destroy ISIS, but the problem is that you can not use conventional methods and that is what Trump wants to do and that is where Trump's plan will fall flat.

The strategy Hillary Clinton outlined hinges on three main elements – defeating ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; disrupting and dismantling the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world; and defeat them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization, and hardening our defenses.

Obama's strategy seems to be air strikes....

How does this differ from anything Trump has said ?
 
I must have missed the part where stabilizing a region like the Middle East could be done quickly and with a short-term presence.

I just love that you're a Trump guy, already. That didn't take long.

I didn't hear Trump say anything about it being done quickly or mention a long term presence....

and trying to clarify what he did or didn't say is not showing support or non support for anyone....
 
The strategy Hillary Clinton outlined hinges on three main elements – defeating ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; disrupting and dismantling the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world; and defeat them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization, and hardening our defenses.

Obama's strategy seems to be air strikes....

How does this differ from anything Trump has said ?

Nope, you only read what you want to read, they are cutting off their funds, ISIS is very cash strapped these days, they are cutting off their communications, facebook was the recent assault against ISIS. They are now having to use others means to communicate, in addition to airstrikes on their leaders, which has also crippled their organization.
 
"If you take the man at his word and you listen to his statements on the trail, he set himself up, if he's elected, to trigger the largest civil military crisis probably since the American Civil War," he says.
Breen argues that Trump is suggesting that U.S. soldiers carry out "illegal orders" — things like targeting the families of terrorists, and murdering civilians on purpose, and torturing for the sake of torturing.
"He says even if [torture] doesn't work, let's do it anyway," Breen says. "He's talking about, as a presidential candidate, issuing clearly illegal orders that our senior military leaders would be very unlikely to follow. That's a crisis we haven't had in a long time."

http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-armed-forces-think-commander-chief-trump/
 
Nope, you only read what you want to read, they are cutting off their funds, ISIS is very cash strapped these days, they are cutting off their communications, facebook was the recent assault against ISIS. They are now having to use others means to communicate, in addition to airstrikes on their leaders, which has also crippled their organization.

And does what you say and what we're doing differ from anything Trump has said.....?
 
Back
Top