Trumps foreign policy.

[ObserveandReport]

Trumps stance on foreign policy is vague at best. He's said we'll "...get rid of Isis and get rid of them fast." He's also said he's comfortable with targeting the families of terrorists. Finances and borders are important, but personally I can't vote for another war monger. I did it with Obama when I was on the other side of the isle, thinking he was the peace candidate. Sanders and Paul were the only two this go around. Why do you all feel that supporting a war monger is preferable to abstaining from voting altogether or casting a vote for a third party? Specifically, do you think that saving your children from paying taxes is more important than preventing our military from slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of people?

[Wuzzums]

I have no problem with the death of people that want to kill me first. We (the west) showed them we would rather die than give up our right to free speech. They held us to our standard showing they would rather see us dead than let us talk. The only way this conflict can end is in blood.

[ObserveandReport]

I have no problem with the death of people that want to kill me first. We (the west) showed them we would rather die than give up our right to free speech. They held us to our standard showing they would rather see us dead than let us talk. The only way this conflict can end is in blood.

Whose "they" and who do "they" speak for? What specifically was their aggression that bares out increasing our military presence in foreign lands? What do the infant children of terrorists have to do with any of it? If you want to make the argument that they are future potential threats, I think we ought not be scared of babes. I'm not a pacifist by any means. If an enemy attacks us, we should respond. We should also defend ourselves from future attacks. That being said....how do you fight a decentralized network with a professional army? Also, it would seem that plenty of Muslim majority countries are better poised to fight this war. 

 

However, since Isis hasn't actually attacked us, it would seem that actions against them would be preemptive in nature. I'm not ruling out preemption altogether, but as a steadfast policy to be instituted as our default response to ideological and military opposition, seems to me unwise. I knew this community supported Trump, but Jesus did that go over like a lead balloon. I don't want to speak in generalities, I want to make specific arguments about specific claims. Unfortunately, Trump hasn't really made anything of the kind when it comes to foreign policy. Rather he's uttered things that sound pro-military and pro-war. Isn't that concerning? 

 

I guess for me it comes down to this. I suspect many of you adhere to the NAP. That is without coercion, or the threat thereof, non-consented violence is immoral. Where is the (credible) threat of violence to 300,000,000 Americans? What is it that we can't do? What have they said that we ignore at our own peril? I'm not asking rhetorically, I mean who specifically do we go after and for what threats (or actual violence) ? Any details you give in answering this question beyond "Isis" and "destroy them" are going to be more than Trump himself has provided.

 

I support many of Trumps current policies and a lot of the policies he supported before he became a mainstream candidate (when he resembled more of a straight up Libertarian), I just wouldn't vote for him. In stead of downvoting me why don't you educate me on why my concerns are misguided? 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Why don't you call in, dude? Obviously you haven't been receiving the types of responses you've wanted here, so why not call in and get your points heard if you think they are really important and deserve to be tested, and you are yearning for valid criticism of your points. I would really enjoy it, and I think many others would, too. It's obviously a very important topic that could benefit a lot from the platform. So why not call in?

[Mister Mister]

I don't see that all the downvotes are really justified.  You make valid points and are obviously passionate, but haven't been insulting or manipulative.

 

I would not say Trump is a warmonger, but neither is he a non-interventionist.  His perspective in foreign policy, as in immigration, and trade, is to do what is best for average Americans.  So if there are people out there that are a threat, he advocates destroying them, but not intervening in the affairs of the world toward some humanitarian or globalist ends.  In particular I find the idea intriguing, of charging Japan, Korea, and countries in Europe, for US military presence there.  If it were me, I would just pull all the troops out, but people always freak out and complain about how bad that would be - Putin would invade the Baltics, N Korea would invade S Korea, and so on.  So Trump's approach is, "fine, what's it worth to you?".  The effect would be positive on the budget either way.

 

  I don't necessarily agree with the above positions, but that's how I understand they are arrived at.  I don't think they are 100% right, but still they are way better than the budget-destroying, neocon mad world domination policy we've had the past several decades.  If Trump is such a war-monger, why do the neocons hate him so much?

[youzer]

Where is the (credible) threat of violence to 300,000,000 Americans? What is it that we can't do? What have they said that we ignore at our own peril? I'm not asking rhetorically, I mean who specifically do we go after and for what threats (or actual violence) ? Any details you give in answering this question beyond "Isis" and "destroy them" are going to be more than Trump himself has provided.

 

Wouldn't an overt threat against 300,000,000 be just as valid as a threat against 1? Wouldn't a threat against 1 require a meaningful response if such threat is carried out?

Hasn't it been proven that the people making these threats and carrying out attacks can be identified?

Is the ideology promoted under islam one that allows for acceptance of the NAP?

[ObserveandReport]

Why don't you call in, dude? Obviously you haven't been receiving the types of responses you've wanted here, so why not call in and get your points heard if you think they are really important and deserve to be tested, and you are yearning for valid criticism of your points. I would really enjoy it, and I think many others would, too. It's obviously a very important topic that could benefit a lot from the platform. So why not call in?

That; would be difficult. There are a few topics I'd bring up before trump. Also, I want to watch more of Stef's Trump videos to make sure I'm not bringing up redundant concerns. Also, I was hoping for those of you who knew better would be willing to discuss it. I figured this would be the place. 

 

I don't see that all the downvotes are really justified.  You make valid points and are obviously passionate, but haven't been insulting or manipulative.

 

I would not say Trump is a warmonger, but neither is he a non-interventionist.  His perspective in foreign policy, as in immigration, and trade, is to do what is best for average Americans.  So if there are people out there that are a threat, he advocates destroying them, but not intervening in the affairs of the world toward some humanitarian or globalist ends.  In particular I find the idea intriguing, of charging Japan, Korea, and countries in Europe, for US military presence there.  If it were me, I would just pull all the troops out, but people always freak out and complain about how bad that would be - Putin would invade the Baltics, N Korea would invade S Korea, and so on.  So Trump's approach is, "fine, what's it worth to you?".  The effect would be positive on the budget either way.

 

  I don't necessarily agree with the above positions, but that's how I understand they are arrived at.  I don't think they are 100% right, but still they are way better than the budget-destroying, neocon mad world domination policy we've had the past several decades.  If Trump is such a war-monger, why do the neocons hate him so much?

This is what I was hoping for. It seems you have been paying way closer attention than I have. I wish it listed these things on his website. I like the potential to withdraw troops. Would you characterize it as "Isis is the exception to the general rule"

Wouldn't an overt threat against 300,000,000 be just as valid as a threat against 1? Wouldn't a threat against 1 require a meaningful response if such threat is carried out?

Hasn't it been proven that the people making these threats and carrying out attacks can be identified?

Is the ideology promoted under islam one that allows for acceptance of the NAP?

I suppose you could make that argument. Is that one person an American? I suspect that possibly involving us in another quagmire will endanger more Americans than are threatened currently (counting the American soldiers that would undoubtedly die in such efforts). It's this very concern that has me apprehensive about the "isis is the exception" approach he seems to be taking. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Since it was said you are not being manipulative, I thought it would be important to point out how that is not actually true.

 

You said Trump is vague about foreign policy and then quoted one line out of context. That's not an argument. It is manipulative to say he is vague and then immediately after quote a single line out of context. it is a very sly way of not making an argument but attaching a negative connotation to the other person. It was in fact you who was being vague.

 

"observe and report."

 

... more like "observe and slander"

[Wuzzums]

Whose "they" and who do "they" speak for? What specifically was their aggression that bares out increasing our military presence in foreign lands? What do the infant children of terrorists have to do with any of it? If you want to make the argument that they are future potential threats, I think we ought not be scared of babes. I'm not a pacifist by any means. If an enemy attacks us, we should respond. We should also defend ourselves from future attacks. That being said....how do you fight a decentralized network with a professional army? Also, it would seem that plenty of Muslim majority countries are better poised to fight this war. 

 

However, since Isis hasn't actually attacked us, it would seem that actions against them would be preemptive in nature. I'm not ruling out preemption altogether, but as a steadfast policy to be instituted as our default response to ideological and military opposition, seems to me unwise. I knew this community supported Trump, but Jesus did that go over like a lead balloon. I don't want to speak in generalities, I want to make specific arguments about specific claims. Unfortunately, Trump hasn't really made anything of the kind when it comes to foreign policy. Rather he's uttered things that sound pro-military and pro-war. Isn't that concerning? 

 

I guess for me it comes down to this. I suspect many of you adhere to the NAP. That is without coercion, or the threat thereof, non-consented violence is immoral. Where is the (credible) threat of violence to 300,000,000 Americans? What is it that we can't do? What have they said that we ignore at our own peril? I'm not asking rhetorically, I mean who specifically do we go after and for what threats (or actual violence) ? Any details you give in answering this question beyond "Isis" and "destroy them" are going to be more than Trump himself has provided.

 

I support many of Trumps current policies and a lot of the policies he supported before he became a mainstream candidate (when he resembled more of a straight up Libertarian), I just wouldn't vote for him. In stead of downvoting me why don't you educate me on why my concerns are misguided? 

 

I'm not american. I'm from Europe and I want Trump to kill all the people that want to kill people.

[ObserveandReport]

I apologize for not pointing this out earlier, but since it was said you are not being manipulative, I thought it would be important to point out how that is not actually true.

 

You said Trump is vague about foreign policy and then quoted one line out of context. That's not an argument. It is manipulative to say he is vague and then immediately after quote a single line out of context. it is a very sly way of not making an argument but attaching a negative connotation to the other person. It was in fact you who was being vague.

 

I don't think that was even the full extent of manipulation contained in that post, but it might help to understand that if someone is not sure why he is being down voted. It is very typical and boring tactic that should not be encouraged on the boards.

 

I am sorry if I encouraged it by condoning it in my first post, but that type of tactic really shouldn't be present, especially when that person calls themselves "observe and report."

 

... more like "observe and slander"

To slander is to outright lie to hurt someone's reputation. I've done nothing of the sort. If I wanted to do something like that I'd be somewhere where swing voters are. This is for my edification. I went to his website to read his policies. There are none on the written section. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions. I watched the videos he provided and that was the most I could find. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/. This is on his website which is supposed to pitch him to voters (possibly me right?). Then recently he gave a scripted press conference in which he was equally vague. If he said something along the lines of what Rosecodex had said, I wouldn't even be having this conversation. Also, technically what he said in all of these instances is not contradictory. Howeever, he doesn't clearly outline his policies when it comes to Isis, in a digestible way. The caveat here is that I have not been watching his every move.

 

"America first" and outlining the mistakes of American foreign policy are great. Forcing other countries to pay for our military is great. I want specifics about why we can and should engage with Isis, how it will be done, and I don't accept "it's a strategic military secret" as an answer. Do we have to announce on television? No, but what he could do is get ringing endorsements of his strategy from informed military strategists/personnel. "It's a secret" is not good enough. Not by a long shot.

 

Additionally I didn't take the most disagreeable part of his statements out of context. How can you justify murdering the grandparents of terrorists? It's not rhetorical and that quote was from a morning news show. Adding context doesn't change the content at all.

 

Then there's the coal stoking over Iranian nukes. Israelis aren't worried, so I'm not worried. That's not a small thing. They are privy to one of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world. They are the one's most likely to suffer if Iran gets nukes. Iran will never use nukes. The same people who wouldn't use them, wouldn't give them to people who would for fear of global nuclear war. 

 

Then there's criticism of Biden for criticizing Israel. There's plenty to criticize there. Condemning West Bank settlements is not misguided or weakening the "only Western Democracy in the region." It's fair.

 

I'm simply looking for a policy discussion. I'm all for calling out Obama, Clinton, and all our past leaders for their blunders. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call the person doing it out on "untruths" 22:58 of the above link Trump says "we don't blockade, we don't bomb..." Really? We don't bomb? This is a casual mistake in a SCRIPTED speech. We have dropped a LOT of bombs on ISIS.http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/. It's horribly irritating to agree with what he says almost all the time and then hear what are either lies or casual mistakes. It makes defending him awfully hard. Is that why you have reacted as you have to merely dismiss and downvote me? This is a terrible mistake if you truly want your movement to succeed. Don't emulate the regressive left which eats itself. 

 

I'm not american. I'm from Europe and I want Trump to kill all the people that want to kill people.

I can respect that. To quote Trump though, "put Americans first again." That's why I want to have a policy discussion, so we can talk about what he really intends to do. Every great dictator, I'm sure promised he was going to be "really great", "tremendous", and all the like. It's really weird to me that I have to preach distrust of the state. 

[Crallask]

If it's any solace Trump has said "Why do we need to be getting involved in Syria? It seems like every time we go over and meddle in other people's business, we make things worse"

 

I heard him say something along those lines at a rally.

[ObserveandReport]

If it's any solace Trump has said "Why do we need to be getting involved in Syria? It seems like every time we go over and meddle in other people's business, we make things worse"

 

I heard him say something along those lines at a rally.

I can get behind that.

[Mister Mister]

I'm not american. I'm from Europe and I want Trump to kill all the people that want to kill people.

at what cost?

[Wuzzums]

at what cost?

 

At the cost of their lives? I thought I was being clear.

 

If you're implying that starting a war with islam would lead to more death and suffering than just submitting then I still choose to live. I cannot sacrifice myself for a hypothetical scenario. Self defense is not immoral, regardless of numbers.

[Mister Mister]

At the cost of their lives? I thought I was being clear.

 

If you're implying that starting a war with islam would lead to more death and suffering than just submitting then I still choose to live. I cannot sacrifice myself for a hypothetical scenario. Self defense is not immoral, regardless of numbers.

 

I'm not sure how you can wage war with a belief system. 

 

Does carpet bombing count as self-defense?  Just curious what you actually mean.  It's easy to say "go kill the bad people", but the question is, how do we identify them, how do we prevent collateral damage, and what will be the consequences? 

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue but I lean towards non-intervention.

[labmath2]

I did not want yo comment, but when i see people taking liberties with language, i cannot help it.

 

What do you mean by we should kill people that want to kill people? Does that include dictators and ally country government officials?

 

What counts as credible threat? Does a video of someone's intent to attack us count? Does it matter that they are across an ocean ftom us?

 

What foes self preservation in todays world of international politics? Dp you think people in Iraq and Afganistan feel safe from americans? How does their experience affect you or should it afgect you

[Wuzzums]

I'm not sure how you can wage war with a belief system. 

 

Does carpet bombing count as self-defense?  Just curious what you actually mean.  It's easy to say "go kill the bad people", but the question is, how do we identify them, how do we prevent collateral damage, and what will be the consequences? 

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue but I lean towards non-intervention.

ISIS has known bases around the world. Sympathizers express themselves freely on social media. There yet hasn't been an identified terrorist that didn't have a criminal record.

 

Because the west has become so lenient towards not offending Muslims, I argue that said Muslims have become quite bold in their actions and with boldness comes recklessness. Terrorists have developed their infrastructure in a permissive populus making them unprepared if we choose to turn on them suddenly.

[ObserveandReport]

ISIS has known bases around the world. Sympathizers express themselves freely on social media. There yet hasn't been an identified terrorist that didn't have a criminal record.

 

Because the west has become so lenient towards not offending Muslims, I argue that said Muslims have become quite bold in their actions and with boldness comes recklessness. Terrorists have developed their infrastructure in a permissive populus making them unprepared if we choose to turn on them suddenly.

Any data to back up your conclusions?

 

 

I'm not sure how you can wage war with a belief system. 

 

Does carpet bombing count as self-defense?  Just curious what you actually mean.  It's easy to say "go kill the bad people", but the question is, how do we identify them, how do we prevent collateral damage, and what will be the consequences? 

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue but I lean towards non-intervention.

Nazism was a belief set, which we effectively waged war against. I'm not interventionist, but I also don't take intervention off the table for the objection you raised. Whether or not this would be a quagmire and the challenges of fighting a largely decentralized enemy.... that's another story. 

 

Here's a problem for us anarchists: Among the benefits of decentralization for an AnCap society when it comes to comes to conquerors, which fail to equally benefit ISIS and make them a more formidable foe than other recent historical examples?

[Mister Mister]

Nazism was a belief set, which we effectively waged war against.

 

....did we?  Was National Socialism defeated in 1945?

[ObserveandReport]

....did we?  Was National Socialism defeated in 1945?

To the extent that it was an effective and motivating political disposition. Yes. Are there neo-nazis? Sure. That doesn't invalidate the massive strides made against fascistic world domination.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 

I'm not sure how you can wage war with a belief system. 

 

Does carpet bombing count as self-defense?  Just curious what you actually mean.  It's easy to say "go kill the bad people", but the question is, how do we identify them, how do we prevent collateral damage, and what will be the consequences? 

 

I have mixed feelings on the issue but I lean towards non-intervention.

 

It's pointless to talk about non-interventionism when there is no candidate who has a likely shot of winning that is explicitly and trustworthy a non-interventionist. The relevant comparison to Trump's foreign policy are the other candidates.

 

Application of the NAP towards innocent civilians is a theoretical discussion that has nothing to do with the present situation. The present situation is that there are two groups initiating force, USA and ISIS, and there are the 'citizens' of each group who are under the threat of force. That each group would rather guns be pointed at the other than have guns pointed at themselves is completely rational and not a violation of the NAP. What is cuckish is that some people would rather highlight force against innocent muslims, but ignore force against innocent USA citizens, and pin them with the responsibility of murders committed by their captors. That is atrocious.

 

All this moral fiber strings pulling without any context, without refuting any of the actual arguments given by the show, is just trying to manipulate your capacity for empathy towards muslims, when muslims have not displayed any more empathy, and in fact are hostile to western society as demonstrated in numerous polls. Germany is an example of what happens when you vote for an r selected cuck; the force doesn't disappear. Peaceful society doesn't make itself present. No, the guns, the force of the state, are increasingly turned on the domestic population. This is not a situation of choice.

 

I'm done responding in threads like this, unless they're willing to take on actual arguments provided on the show. The show is putting out too much great content for me to waste my time dabbling in non arguments by people who won't call in, and just want to bring up "muh concerns." News flash: the point of philosophy is not to care about your feelings. Make an argument that is actually represented here, cite it, and refute it; or shut up.

[ObserveandReport]

It's pointless to talk about non-interventionism when there is no candidate who has a likely shot of winning that is explicitly and trustworthy a non-interventionist. The relevant comparison to Trump's foreign policy are the other candidates.

 

I take it your stance is not voting, for the impact it has on other decidedly straight forward issues, is not an option for cost/benefit reasons (not an argument, simply trying to gauge your position)? I don't disagree with your statements (to the extent I understand them). 

Does the right of self-defense allow us to be complicit in the force which results in the deaths of others, even if those others won't miss us and are complicit in their masters hostility towards us? More simply, how far does self defense go in your estimation?