Trump stumped on foreign policy, hits 'gotcha' questions

Poor Beggar · Sep 4, 2015

Willtor said:
Destroying Iraq's burgeoning infrastructures isn't going to stop ISIS, nor is it going to help us keep our friends in the region (or in the rest of the world).

We need to find a way to seize their assets. This is the first insurgency who's had the economic capacity to get beyond the early levels of a terrorist organization. SF troops understand this and work to break the resupply and fiancial back of a terrorist group while raising up counterinsurgency forces. ISIS has been the first to get around the model by securing massive amounts of wealth through non-trad methods. We need to seize those.

faroukfarouk · Sep 4, 2015

Willtor said:
I'd love to criticize Trump for this, but he's marketing himself as a domestic policy candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know who David Cameron was. AFAIK, he's only been buying U.S. politicians, so he probably knows most of the players there, and that's what his rhetoric has been all along. Remember how he dealt with the ISIS question? Yeah. Whatever his supporters' perceptions of him overall, I'm sure nobody's under any illusions that he has foreign policy credibility.

That said, I'll criticize his inability to admit when he doesn't know a thing. But I also think his supporters like that, too. It shows confidence.

I guess ppl in other countries will be continually surprised if some candidates and their supporters give the impression that foreign policy is irrelevant to running for the US Presidency.

It's not for me, however, to say who Americans should want as their President.

Poor Beggar · Sep 4, 2015

faroukfarouk said:
I guess ppl in other countries will be continually surprised if some candidates and their supporters give the impression that foreign policy is irrelevant to running for the US Presidency.

It's not for me, however, to say who Americans should want as their President.

Americans have gone completely cray cray. I think the state of the world requires someone who can fix our economy and recognize the global threats. But we like to make things one way or the other down here.

grasping the after wind · Sep 4, 2015

JustOneWay said:
Why should anyone care if Obama:

reads from a teleprompter

fist bumps his wife

using an umbrella

puts his foot on the desk

for wearing casual attire

Why should anybody care about things Trump knows about middle east terrorists? I can't imagine why....

I see no reason anyone would care about any of those things you list about the current President except the first one. Why a speaker that had the courage of their convictions and knowledge of their subject would need to read prepared text from a teleprompter I cannot fathom. It seems to me to show either a lack of confidence in one's own ability to speak rationally or a fear of mistakenly speaking candidly. As for your last sentence, I think it is totally irrelevant to my post as I do not believe I stated that nobody would care about anything that Trump might know about middle east terrorists but I cannot see how memorizing the individual names of some of them is anything to care about or to be impressed by. What possible purpose would memorizing names serve? Of course now in hopes of looking informed to people that think memorizing things is being informed every candidate will be memorizing names for the next few weeks and the one that does finally get elected President will look back on that as probably the most useless waste of their time on the planet.

JustOneWay · Sep 4, 2015

grasping the after wind said:
I see no reason anyone would care about any of those things you list about the current President except the first one. Why a speaker that had the courage of their convictions and knowledge of their subject would need to read prepared text from a teleprompter I cannot fathom. It seems to me to show either a lack of confidence in one's own ability to speak rationally or a fear of mistakenly speaking candidly. As for your last sentence, I think it is totally irrelevant to my post as I do not believe I stated that nobody would care about anything that Trump might know about middle east terrorists but I cannot see how memorizing the individual names of some of them is anything to care about or to be impressed by. What possible purpose would memorizing names serve? Of course now in hopes of looking informed to people that think memorizing things is being informed every candidate will be memorizing names for the next few weeks and the one that does finally get elected President will look back on that as probably the most useless waste of their time on the planet.

My point was rather straight forward. It really is irrelevant whether you or I believe that anything about a candidate is unimportant, when people will make mountains out of any molehill the candidate presents.

If this is better for you...

Why should anyone care if Trump knows the names of terrorists? Seems an unimportant detail.

It is unimportant, but people have a weird way of latching onto unimportant things and blowing out of proportion....because they can.

grasping the after wind · Sep 4, 2015

faroukfarouk said:
I guess ppl in other countries will be continually surprised if some candidates and their supporters give the impression that foreign policy is irrelevant to running for the US Presidency.

It's not for me, however, to say who Americans should want as their President.

For the majority of Presidential elections foreign policy has been irrelevant to the electorate. They are always more interested in domestic policy than foreign policy and past Presidents have often continued the same policies of their predecessors anyway. As foreign policy cannot change every four to eight years and allow a country to be seen by the rest of the world as reliable this had been a good thing for US foreign relations and a good thing for those allied with the US. If a country keeps switching sides or alliances in international disputes it tends to marginalize that country's influence as they cannot be counted on.

stamperben · Sep 4, 2015

Trump not knowing the names of terrorists is unimportant but a president reading off a teleprompter (which ALL have done since it's inception) is important. Wow, what twisted logic.

AirPo · Sep 4, 2015

stamperben said:
Trump not knowing the names of terrorists is unimportant but a president reading off a teleprompter (which ALL have done since it's inception) is important. Wow, what twisted logic.

The question is could Trump read the name of terrorists off a teleprompter.

JustOneWay · Sep 4, 2015

stamperben said:
Trump not knowing the names of terrorists is unimportant but a president reading off a teleprompter (which ALL have done since it's inception) is important. Wow, what twisted logic.

Which made my point spot on. People determine for themselves what is or what is not important....

JustOneWay · Sep 4, 2015

AirPo said:
The question is could Trump read the name of terrorists off a teleprompter.

Only if it was a terrific teleprompter....

stamperben · Sep 4, 2015

JustOneWay said:
Only if it was a terrific teleprompter....

Naw, it would have to be a Trumpific teleprompter.

AirPo · Sep 4, 2015

stamperben said:
Naw, it would have to be a Trumpific teleprompter.

The TeleTrumpter 2001!

Blank Stair · Sep 4, 2015

Rationalt said:
Kurds and quds is a pronunciation problem.

These journo idiots have never asked such minute and stupid detail questions to Obama when he was running for presidency.

Did they have to? When Obama is his own best punch line?

If I was a journalist there I'd have asked a follow up question: Mr. Obama, would you name off those states you've visited?

JustOneWay · Sep 4, 2015

AirPo said:
The TeleTrumpter 2001!

The teleTrumpter only displays terrific ideas for awesomely terrific people!

faroukfarouk · Sep 4, 2015

grasping the after wind said:
For the majority of Presidential elections foreign policy has been irrelevant to the electorate. They are always more interested in domestic policy than foreign policy and past Presidents have often continued the same policies of their predecessors anyway. As foreign policy cannot change every four to eight years and allow a country to be seen by the rest of the world as reliable this had been a good thing for US foreign relations and a good thing for those allied with the US. If a country keeps switching sides or alliances in international disputes it tends to marginalize that country's influence as they cannot be counted on.

A pity the US did not keep to the sound advice that you mention: the Obama Administration pulled the plug on President Mubarak in Egypt, and some years ago announced that it wanted to overthrow the government of Syria: thus strengthening radicals in those countries: with the results plain for all to see.

JustOneWay · Sep 4, 2015

faroukfarouk said:
A pity the US did not keep to the sound advice that you mention: the Obama Administration pulled the plug on President Mubarak in Egypt, and some years ago announced that it wanted to overthrow the government of Syria: thus strengthening radicals in those countries: with the results plain for all to see.

Don't forget Bush! He was actually more instrumental in the destabilization in the middle east, than anything Obama did :wave:

faroukfarouk · Sep 4, 2015

JustOneWay said:
Don't forget Bush! He was actually more instrumental in the destabilization in the middle east, than anything Obama did

The Senior one, you mean?

President Bush Senior called on the Kurds to revolt...and when many did, no assistance was given. The Eisenhower Administration called on the Hungarians to revolt in 1956...and when many did, no assistance was given.

The US's Israeli allies are not likely to take US military and diplomatic advice without careful scrutiny.

Sistrin · Sep 4, 2015

stamperben said:
No, it's an intelligence problem.

Did you know who the Quds were prior to this Trump interview? Or that their leader, Qasem Soleimani, the man directly responsible for shipment of IED's to Iraq to be used against US troops, will personally benefit?

General ‘whose organization is drenched in American blood’ gets sanction relief in #IranDeal

"One of the people on the list of those winning sanctions relief in today’s Iran deal is Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, reportedly the commander of Shiite militias in Iraq fighting ISIS...the same Qasem Soleimani who was in charge of Shiite militias that killed American troops during the Iraq war."

Source: http://twitchy.com/2015/07/14/gener...rican-blood-gets-sanction-relief-in-irandeal/

Which event makes you more angry, Stamp, Trump not knowing a terrorist name or that terrorist being responsible for the death and wounding of numerous US troops?

stamperben · Sep 4, 2015

I'm not angry Sis, where would you have gotten that idea? I'll let others here show their anger to the forums audience.

Willtor · Sep 4, 2015

Rationalt said:
Not so much as destroying entirely , but making the oil fields , from which ISIS derives it's revenue, inoperable by strategic attacks is in the realm of sound military tactics.

Not just ISIS, but all of Iraq. Destroying the fundamental money-making infrastructure will further destabilize Iraq. Maybe it would destroy ISIS (maybe not, if they are able to pivot effectively to another source of income), but it will certainly lead to more ISIS-like entities.

Mind you, I don't have an answer for ISIS. But only because most of the solutions I can think of would lead to greater instability.

Poor Beggar said:
I'm okay with that. I wouldn't mind a President who realizes that Commander-in-Chief is a formality that simply brings checks and balances to the military. At the end of the day you have to listen to your generals and not try to be one.

I would say it's more than a formality because a president has to take responsibility for the decisions, though I agree with the rest of the sentiment. But if this doesn't describe Obama, it _definitely_ doesn't describe Trump.

Trump stumped on foreign policy, hits 'gotcha' questions

Everything is everywhere.

Fading curmudgeon

Everything is everywhere.

That's grasping after the wind

:)

That's grasping after the wind

It's an old family tradition

with a Touch of Grey

:)

:)

It's an old family tradition

with a Touch of Grey

1 Peter 3:16

:)

Fading curmudgeon

:)

Fading curmudgeon

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

It's an old family tradition

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Similar threads