Trump Foreign Policy thread


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
Trump administration ready to suspend Russian arms control pact | TheHill

This is a courageous defence of democracy against Russian aggression.
Yeah, if you're so ignorant that you don't realize it's rather meaningless with regard to the US-Russian relationship* then it sure looks like a courageous defense of democracy against Russian aggression instead of what it actually is: a move to open up US development of such weapons to counter China.

*Except insofar as the US withdrawal serves to undermine a central pillar of Europe's security architecture and serves to make US allies (read: NATO, that organization which your Soviet apologist hates so much) uncomfortable, less secure and unhappy.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,885
Yeah, if you're so ignorant that you don't realize it's rather meaningless with regard to the US-Russian relationship* then it sure looks like a courageous defense of democracy against Russian aggression instead of what it actually is: a move to open up US development of such weapons to counter China.

*Except insofar as the US withdrawal serves to undermine a central pillar of Europe's security architecture and serves to make US allies (read: NATO, that organization which your Soviet apologist hates so much) uncomfortable, less secure and unhappy.
Russia has already violated INF anyway with its development of cruise missiles.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
Russia has already violated INF anyway with its development of cruise missiles.
Yes, they have. The only consequence this development thus has is that it undermines Europe's security architecture by introducing the possibility of a (technological) arms race in that respect and serves to make US allies uncomfortable and unhappy. In other words, the US isn't standing up to Russia. Russia was never the target of this move, China was. But because of the way your Soviet apologist has gone about it he further undermines NATO's - a key goal of Russian foreign policy.

And you know what the funny thing is? Withdrawing from the INF treaty is actually a perfectly defensible decision, but president Cuckling McSniffles has chosen to raise the costs for his own side by the way he's gone about it. That's not defensible.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,885
Yes, they have. The only consequence this development thus has is that it undermines Europe's security architecture by introducing the possibility of a (technological) arms race in that respect and serves to make US allies uncomfortable and unhappy. In other words, the US isn't standing up to Russia. Russia was never the target of this move, China was. But because of the way your Soviet apologist has gone about it he further undermines NATO's cohesion.
These are similar arguments as the ones against Ronald Reagans military buildup in Europe. Reagan was ultimately vindicated when the USSR fell.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
These are similar arguments as the ones against Ronald Reagans military buildup in Europe. Reagan was ultimately vindicated when the USSR fell.
So, you're reduced to pointing to Reagan (who actually negotiated the INF treaty) because you're left with no substantive argument in favor of your original stance.

The funny thing is, of course, that I'm not criticizing the choice to withdraw in and of itself. I see merit in withdrawing. I'm criticizing your argument that this is somehow a move to counter Russia (it's not) and the way the Soviet apologist has gone about it (terribly, as usual).
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
So, let's take a closer look at the abject capitulation to the Taliban that Trump has in mind for America. The United States has offered to withdraw all of its combat troops from Afghanistan on apparently three core conditions.

The first condition is that the Taliban will not allow Afghanistan to be used for terrorism. The Taliban have agreed to this. That's great until you realize there's nothing to stop the Taliban from reneging on their word the moment US troops leave. Why trust the Taliban like that? Even if you're naive enough to trust the Taliban like that, then you'd do well to remember that they couldn't control all of Afghanistan before 2001. There's no reason to think they'd be able to control all of Afghanistan now. That makes them incapable of ensuring that Afghanistan won't be used for terrorism. With US forces gone, neither will the US be capable of preventing the use of Afghanistan as a staging ground.

The second condition is a ceasefire. The Taliban haven't agreed to this yet. It's a good condition to have, but why trust the Taliban to uphold it after US forces leave?

The third condition is that the Taliban engage in talks with the Afghan government. Not come to an agreement, mind you. All they have to do is engage in talks. Engage in talks long enough and uphold a ceasefire long enough for US forces to leave so that they have a free hand and can make sure Kabul falls.

In short, America leaves entirely while the Taliban promises no terrorism in Afghanistan (which they're not in a position to promise anyway) and that there won't be a replay of the Fall of Saigon (which there will be). Abject American capitulation, brought to you by Trump the Soviet apologist.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
What does Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon think will be the result of Cuckly McSniffles' proposed abject surrender to the Taliban?

Foreign Policy: What’s your reaction to the news that U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has reached a tentative framework agreement with the Taliban?

Ryan Crocker: (...) So whatever guarantees we think we’ve got, the outcome, I’m afraid, is going to be sadly different. If we withdraw as we’re talking about in an 18-month timeline, you will simply see the Taliban move in and retake the country.

(...)

We’ve seen this before, at the Paris peace talks with Vietnam. But I think what makes this particularly grave is, for example, what’s going to happen to Afghan women? The women we encouraged to step forward, the ones that we made a major effort to get back into schools. What about them? And there is no assurance or guarantee that the Taliban would make that I would trust. Who’s going to enforce it?

FP: You are speaking as if the Taliban will certainly take over the Afghan government. That’s your assumption?

RC: It is, sooner or later. Negotiation 101: Do not negotiate from a position of weakness. As we’ve seen in the last year-plus, the Taliban are gaining ground. They are not the juggernaut that some accounts seem to make of them, but they control more and more and the government less and less. So to think they would now stop and say, OK, we’ll respect the constitution and seek legal changes, that isn’t going to happen.

FP: If there were a complete U.S. withdrawal, with some kind of U.S. support remaining, is it possible to imagine they could hold off the Taliban to some degree?

RC: They might. I think, though, that the dynamic is different in one important respect from the early ’90s. That was a period where you had like seven different forces contending for power. In this case you’ve got one, which is the Taliban. And after [nearly] 18 years in the wilderness, they are not kinder, gentler, or less dedicated. Again, we may get an assurance about not providing safe haven for groups like al Qaeda. But given the fact that the Taliban made the choice in 2001 that they would face defeat on the battlefield rather than give up al Qaeda, as the proposition was put to them, does anybody really think the Taliban will be different this time?
The Soviet apologist might as well sign a formal instrument of surrender to the Taliban aboard the USS Missouri, right Trumpsters?

Ryan Crocker: The Taliban Will ‘Retake the Country’ Foreign Policy
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
51,885
Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a satellite. It supports the Taliban both for Islamist reasons, and also because their support base is largely ethnic Pashtun, who are also an important ethnic group in Pakistan.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
Pakistan sees Afghanistan as a satellite. It supports the Taliban both for Islamist reasons, and also because their support base is largely ethnic Pashtun, who are also an important ethnic group in Pakistan.
Hi Captain Obvious, how nice of you to join us. Will you tell us that the sky is blue next?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
The Washington Post's editorial board succinctly sums up what Cuckly McSniffles would sacrifice through his abject surrender:

An end to the Afghan war is desirable, but not at the expense of everything the United States has helped to build there since 2001, including a civil society where girls go to school.
The deaths of over 2300 American soldiers would have been for nothing, as would the deaths of over 1100 allied soldiers. I hope you're happy, Trumpsters.

The Trump administration’s tentative deal with the Taliban could return Afghanistan to chaos - The Washington Post
 

President Bartlet

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
8,576
I see the orange moron tells intelligence chiefs to go back to school - what a d1ckhead - he should heed his own advice the big dumbfook!
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,071
The Washington Post's editorial board succinctly sums up what Cuckly McSniffles would sacrifice through his abject surrender:



The deaths of over 2300 American soldiers would have been for nothing, as would the deaths of over 1100 allied soldiers. I hope you're happy, Trumpsters.

The Trump administration’s tentative deal with the Taliban could return Afghanistan to chaos - The Washington Post
Trump basically handed the Taliban a blank piece of paper to write the terms of US withdrawal, then maybe added a few face-saving conditions. It was a great opportunity squandered.

The last time the Taliban ruled there was a stream of refugees into adjacent countries, and civil war between Tadjiks and Uzbeks (40% of the population) against the Pashtun Taliban.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,670
So, let's talk a bit more about Cuckly McSniffles' abject surrender to the Taliban. Apparently, US intelligence has assessed that within two years of US forces withdrawing from Afghanistan (as Cuckly McSniffles has offered) there will be an attack on the United States.

So, let's tally it up then. Cuckly McSniffles is going to give Afghanistan to the Taliban. He's going to condemn all those people - especially the girls - to horrific oppression and civil war. He's going to effectively piss on the graves of the soldiers who died by giving up everything they fought for AND he's fine with making a deal that would lead to an attack on the US within two years.

The silence of our local Trumpists is of course nothing less than acquiescence and it's just as dishonorable and pathetic as vocal approval. It also doesn't make them morally any different than those who vocally approve Cuckly McSniffles' abject surrender. Disgusting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/us-withdrawal-afghanistan-taliban.html
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,477
Iy feal safier nowe.
[TWEET]1090609577006112769[/TWEET]
Christ on a bike. He's been given his phone back. Dangerous.

In latest attack on intelligence agencies, Trump ignores where they actually agree - The Washington Post

“He doesn’t like the deal because Obama made it,” one U.S. official said. Trump’s attack had less to do with the substance of the intelligence agencies’ conclusions than it did with undermining public confidence in the agencies themselves as neutral purveyors of information, the official said.

In his criticism, Trump seemed to ignore the many points where he and the intelligence agencies agree.
Would be funny if the consequences weren't potentially so dire.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,492
Christ on a bike. He's been given his phone back. Dangerous.

In latest attack on intelligence agencies, Trump ignores where they actually agree - The Washington Post


Would be funny if the consequences weren't potentially so dire.
Indeed, whilst telling them in a tweet that they should go back to school whilst writing "[t]here economy". As he's claimed, Trump has the best words and also knows more than the generals and insults veterans, war heroes, and Gold Star parents after criminally defrauding the draft board with fake bone spur claims in order to evade service during war, etc.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,477
Indeed, whilst telling them in a tweet that they should go back to school whilst writing "[t]here economy". As he's claimed, Trump has the best words and also knows more than the generals and insults veterans, war heroes, and Gold Star parents after criminally defrauding the draft board with fake bone spur claims in order to evade service during war, etc.
Wait now he's saying the intelligence chiefs were misquoted - not that he was misquoted.

Intelligence officials were ‘misquoted’ after public hearing, Trump claims - The Washington Post

Makes no sense, but hopefully they've taken his phone away again ...
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,071
Even Republican Senators are expressing concerns at Trump's (mis)handling of foreign policy.

Guess they finally realised he should not be allowed on the road unaccompanied.

Trump's foreign policy faces growing dissent in Congress

On Afghanistan and Syria, the GOP-run Senate has issued a strong warning against the president’s plans to withdraw troops. Lawmakers in both House and Senate are questioning Trump’s diplomacy with North Korea, his easing of sanctions on a Russian oligarch and even his intent to stay involved in Yemen’s civil war. And his threats to pull out of NATO are causing more consternation on Capitol Hill.
 
Top