Jump to content

Trump foreign policy


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Everyone that was here back at that time knows that you laughed out loud at the deaths of Americans during the Benghazi killings. You've been getting criticized for it for 7+ years and now think you can just laugh that off too? How does it feel to be named Least Patriotic American every year since then? 

lie 

 

You lie 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks to Trump, the Forty-Year Appeasement of Iran Is Over

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig

 

Original Article

 

The assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani is an unusual, possibly aberrant, event. The killing of this individual leader of a sovereign state may lead to all-out war between Iran and the U.S. — or, on the other hand, the assassination may bring an end to the cycle of Iranian violence countered by U.S. and world diplomatic flatulence and appeasement.

(snip)

the Iranians have been in an undeclared war with the U.S. since the ayatollahs and their religiously inspired and power-mad henchmen took over the reins of government from the despotic but pro-American Shah in the seventies.

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Thanks to Trump, the Forty-Year Appeasement of Iran Is Over

by E. Jeffrey Ludwig

 

Original Article

 

The assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani is an unusual, possibly aberrant, event. The killing of this individual leader of a sovereign state may lead to all-out war between Iran and the U.S. — or, on the other hand, the assassination may bring an end to the cycle of Iranian violence countered by U.S. and world diplomatic flatulence and appeasement.

(snip)

the Iranians have been in an undeclared war with the U.S. since the ayatollahs and their religiously inspired and power-mad henchmen took over the reins of government from the despotic but pro-American Shah in the seventies.

 

 

 

.

It might bring about the end of American troops in Iraq. The Iraqis want us out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Contrary To Iran Deal Talking Points, There’s Something Between Appeasement and War

by Erielle Davidson

 

Original Article

 

Erupting first with concerns over an imminent “World War III” and a fast-impending military draft, social media reactions to the killing of Quds Force Commander Qassam Soleimani last Friday have looked like a funhouse of hysteria. The media appears to be leading the charge, frantically egging the Iranian regime to retaliate through utterly fantastical predictions of what comes next. Much of this hyperbolic reporting stems from the fact that the very thesis of the Iran Deal — and years of Ben Rhodes-generated talking points — are being thoroughly tested.

 

(Snip)

 

our media shows scant interest in the massive area that lies between all-out-war and appeasement and surrender.

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Iran Ends Commitment to Nuclear Deal It Never Abided By in The First Place.

 

 

Obama’s deal with Iran gave the Mullahs almost everything they wanted up front, in exchange for weak promises to do a better job of hiding their nuclear ambitions in the future.

 

 

 

Related: Iran Ending Nuclear Deal Commitments – Why It Doesn’t Matter.

 

 

 

afb010620dAPC20200106034517.jpg

 
 
 
.
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

ENj09JmWsAMBmLr?format=jpg&name=small

 

This one actually made me laugh, but only because of how insanely idiotic it is.

The Left, forgetting their central tenet of not believing anything President Trump says, showing Trump using the phrase “believe me” and them wanting to believe it.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRUMP’S SIN: CONDUCTING FOREIGN POLICY WITHOUT PERMISSION

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds posted an interesting message from a Facebook friend who wishes to remain anonymous. Here’s the relevant part:

Following the death of Soleimani, it seems like nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/forpol commentariat has penned variations on exactly the same essay: the President has acted hastily, has no plan, and isn’t capable of envisioning or handling what happens next. The template was established by Ben Rhodes on Twitter a few hours after an MQ-9 Reaper shot a Hellfire missile directly into his professional legacy, and it hasn’t varied much since. . .

 

What nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/forpol commentariat actually means by its critique, though, is that they weren’t included in any of this.

This instantly reminded me of an observation the late great political scientist Aaron Wildavsky made way back in 1986 over the uproar over Reagan’s failed disarmament deal at the Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev. If you are old enough you may recall the foreign policy establishment/media freakout, which was, however, contradictory. How could Reagan have been so stubborn as to refuse to give up his fanciful “Star Wars” missile defense scheme in exchange for near-total nuclear disarmament, and how could Reagan be so reckless as to have gone along with a rapid and potentially destabilizing disarmament scheme without consulting our allies?

 

Wildavsky, a sophisticated and pathbreaking political scientist, thought the matter quite simple:

The contempt hurled at President Reagan over the principles nearly agreed to at Reykjavik reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of his critics. . .  One cannot but feel that much of the violent reaction to Reykjavik had no more substantial basis than the extreme pique felt by arms control intellectuals at not being consulted in advance.  That was Ronald Reagan’s real sin in Iceland. For what, after all, was wrong with Reykjavik except that it lacked the imprimatur of the foreign policy establishment?

 

I tend to think the “deep state” talk is overdone (and is also distinct from the deeper constitutional problem expressed in the similar phrase “the administrative state”), but in this instance it might well be the right way to think about the freakout the foreign policy community is having over Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani. Trump didn’t have their permission!

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/trumps-sin-conducting-foreign-policy-without-permission.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

anything possible the first second they can

 

Well, it won't be to troops on the ground. Our issues with Iran don't come from any desire to conquer them but a desire to get them to change their ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...