- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,749
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Dangerous, foolish, irrational, scary, terrifying, irresponsible, a clown, a disaster. These are just some of the words used to describe the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency by politicians, diplomats and analysts around the world.
Simpleχity;1065829238 said:President Trump fills world leaders with fear: 'It's gone from funny to really scary'
Unsurprisingly, Trump has provided no specifics regarding the foreign policy of a Trump administration. That is because Trump has no foreign policy specifics, just populist rhetoric.
The public-relations company of Trump's top campaign strategist - Paul Manafort - has been listed in the top five lobbying on behalf of human-rights abusers.
Simpleχity;1065829238 said:President Trump fills world leaders with fear: 'It's gone from funny to really scary'
Unsurprisingly, Trump has provided no specifics regarding the foreign policy of a Trump administration. That is because Trump has no foreign policy specifics, just populist rhetoric.
The public-relations company of Trump's top campaign strategist - Paul Manafort - has been listed in the top five lobbying on behalf of human-rights abusers.
It's the lobbyist that are in fear ! :shock:
In fear of what? drowning in a pool filled with gold coins?
In fear of what? drowning in a pool filled with gold coins?
Simpleχity;1065829238 said:President Trump fills world leaders with fear: 'It's gone from funny to really scary'
Unsurprisingly, Trump has provided no specifics regarding the foreign policy of a Trump administration. That is because Trump has no foreign policy specifics, just populist rhetoric.
The public-relations company of Trump's top campaign strategist - Paul Manafort - has been listed in the top five lobbying on behalf of human-rights abusers.
They just buy into the left-wing media hype. People around the world are the same as anyone else. They get their opinions about foreign nations from whatever news and other media sources they prefer.
Trump has been lambasted pretty viciously in the press for the most part. One can only be compared to Hitler, Mussolini, or a clown so many times before people buy into it.
They just buy into the left-wing media hype. People around the world are the same as anyone else. They get their opinions about foreign nations from whatever news and other media sources they prefer.
Trump has been lambasted pretty viciously in the press for the most part. One can only be compared to Hitler, Mussolini, or a clown so many times before people buy into it.
Being unpredictable, at least at the onset, is in fact a strong opening negotiation position.
Compare that to Clinton. Now there is someone whom everyone should be scared of. Not a clue and a temper to boost. If you think Trump is a loose cannon, watch this one.
One can only act like Hitler, Mussolini, or a clown so many times before people call you on it.
They just buy into the left-wing media hype. People around the world are the same as anyone else. They get their opinions about foreign nations from whatever news and other media sources they prefer.
Trump has been lambasted pretty viciously in the press for the most part. One can only be compared to Hitler, Mussolini, or a clown so many times before people buy into it.
In a world where international agreements do not depend on being able to trust the other sovereign nation to follow through with their agreements, then you might be correct.
However, we live in a world where international agreements DEPEND upon that ability to trust the other party. Being "unpredictable" (or outright excoriating the other party in the public) makes the likelihood that a country will agree to your terms or abide by them significantly less likely.
Since when?
"Nations do not have 'friends', they have interests"
"Trust but verify" - isn't really trust now, is it?
Exactly as much as you can 'trust' Iran to comply with the restrictions in Obama's & Karry's deal? :lamo
If following through on an agreement is against a nation's interests, what chance do you think that they will follow through?
Since when?
"Nations do not have 'friends', they have interests"
"Trust but verify" - isn't really trust now, is it?
Exactly as much as you can 'trust' Iran to comply with the restrictions in Obama's & Karry's deal? :lamo
If following through on an agreement is against a nation's interests, what chance do you think that they will follow through?
They were mostly euphoric, when Obama won.
Yeah, they were thrilled at having a weak-willed president who would give use American assets to enrich themselves with bought favors. They're terrified of Trump who isn't going to be pushed around and is going to force lazy ass Europeans to use their own resources to defend their own continent.
By launching nuclear-capable missiles Iran has defied a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed last year's historic nuclear deal, the United States and its European allies said in a joint letter seen by Reuters on Tuesday.
Iran's recent ballistic tests involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and were "inconsistent with" and "in defiance of" council resolution 2231, adopted last July, said the joint U.S., British, French, German letter to Spain's U.N. Ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi and U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon.
The letter said the missiles used in the recent launches were "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons." It also asked that the Security Council discuss "appropriate responses" to Tehran's failure to comply with its obligations and urged Ban to report back on Iranian missile work inconsistent with 2231.
Exclusive: Iran missile tests were 'in defiance of' U.N. resolution - U.S., allies
What were our other choices, vis-a vis Iran?
Choice A: let them continue working on the bomb without us saying anything---non starter.
Choice B: Ramp sanctions up even more then they already had been--no point. Regime change has yet to be accomplished by sanctions, as Cuba has proven, and will harness energy and anger towards Americans even more so then was already there.
Choice C: Let Israel bomb the Iranians--- What's Hebrew for "very bad idea"?
Choice D: bomb and invade Iran ourselves--- Total non starter. It'd be a bloodbath. Iran has had more than ten years to prepare and train for an American invasion.
B: No, not to cause regime change, but to disable Iran's building of a nuke, and continued their reduced influence in the region. The sanctions were international, not just US, so that anger of which you speak would have been directed to the UN.
Elevating a known international terrorist supporter and funder / supplier from their previously degraded position to regional power is a stupid decision to make.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?