Would the World be a safer place under a President Hillliary Clinton or Donald Trump?

badabing106

The old saying " the dog that barks loudest has the weakest bite"

Donald Trump probably isn't going to be President and he is probably not a Hitler type figure , as the media are trying to portray.



Hillary Clinton has a record of authorizing the Iraq war and pushing heavily for the invasion of Libya.

"We came, we saw, he died,” . She is not shy to go in guns blazing

Do you think Donald Trump would be any worse?



In your opinion, Would the world be a safer place under Hiliary Clinton or Donald Trump? Should either of them get elected

ebbsy

So far 100% .

All aboard the Trump Train.....

Manach

As one has no international experience and the other embraces the concept of drone warfare then perhaps the logical choice is President Atari Jaguar?

BoJack Horseman

Neither would have any tangiable impact on the world vis-a-vis 'safety'....

So, it's moot.

The Randy Riverbeast

I don't see either one making things better but I dont see them getting much done to make things worse either. Few more dead and angry people from the middle east is the most I would expect and doubt it would differ with who's in charge.

I'm going to have to go for President AJ as well.

endacl

With Bernie Sanders...

ancapailldorcha

endacl wrote: »

With Bernie Sanders...

Please try to post more constructively than this.

Overheal

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/273197-trumps-top-foreign-policy-advisor-im-speaking-with-myself

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things.."

Trump's response to the question about who he consults on foreign policy...

Sand

Obviously would be safer under Clinton. I think Trump would continue Obama's isolationist stance, leaving the global arena open to China and Russia and various regional actors. Europe is in no way shape or form able to act as even a near regional power as demonstrated in Libya and Syria so if the US doesn't act, global instability will increase.

What foreign policy Trump would have would likely be to aggravate, insult and irritate other states (the stance on Mexico is stupid) weakening international co-operation and reducing US prestige. I think he is unstable and overly emotional and very careless in what he says and how he says it. I think there is a very serious risk of him creating a needless incident, ratcheting up the confrontation to a point where he cannot back down and then miscalculating.

I think the comparisons to Hitler are (a little) OTT. If we are talking about nazi comparisons, he more reminds me of an excitable incompetent loud-mouth buffoon like Goering.

BoJack Horseman

Sand wrote: »

Obviously would be safer under Clinton. I think Trump would continue Obama's isolationist stance, leaving the global arena open to China and Russia and various regional actors.

Has Clinton actually ever stated that she will reverse the 'Obama doctrine' of disengagement?

(And I know officially that is not what the administration would call it, but we both know what we can see).

I would have thought that, not wanting to poop on her former bailiwick, Hillary would have been quite keen to continue Obama's plan?

And, it could be argued (if unconvincingly) that Trump could foster a new era of understanding between the US & Russia.
IMO, Russia will be the ballgame for the next decade, it won't be China.
And as an authoritarian billionaire, Trump admires the authoritarian billionaire ruling the Kremlin.

The Randy Riverbeast

Overheal wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/273197-trumps-top-foreign-policy-advisor-im-speaking-with-myself

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things.."

Trump's response to the question about who he consults on foreign policy...

Better himself than god telling him to go find WMDs. As a republican thats about as good as we can expect.

AbusesToilets

Sand wrote: »

Obviously would be safer under Clinton. I think Trump would continue Obama's isolationist stance, leaving the global arena open to China and Russia and various regional actors. Europe is in no way shape or form able to act as even a near regional power as demonstrated in Libya and Syria so if the US doesn't act, global instability will increase.

What foreign policy Trump would have would likely be to aggravate, insult and irritate other states (the stance on Mexico is stupid) weakening international co-operation and reducing US prestige. I think he is unstable and overly emotional and very careless in what he says and how he says it. I think there is a very serious risk of him creating a needless incident, ratcheting up the confrontation to a point where he cannot back down and then miscalculating.

I think the comparisons to Hitler are (a little) OTT. If we are talking about nazi comparisons, he more reminds me of an excitable incompetent loud-mouth buffoon like Goering.

One counter I would give to that is the need for Congress to pass a proper budget and end sequestration for the military. It has had a seriously negative impact on readiness and training. I'm not confident that a Clinton lead Presidency is going to have much success negotiating with Congress.

Sand

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Has Clinton actually ever stated that she will reverse the 'Obama doctrine' of disengagement?

(And I know officially that is not what the administration would call it, but we both know what we can see).

I don't think Clinton has openly criticised Obama since taking a role in his administration, no. Very hard for her to do so whilst being at least nominally part of the team. Probably half the reason Obama brought her on board.

I would have thought that, not wanting to poop on her former bailiwick, Hillary would have been quite keen to continue Obama's plan?

I think even Obama is frustrated with the minimal returns on his world tour apologising for GWB, and several years of pushing Europe to step up to their local responsibilities. His recent comments on the UK and France as regards Libya were unusually...honest.

And, it could be argued (if unconvincingly) that Trump could foster a new era of understanding between the US & Russia.
IMO, Russia will be the ballgame for the next decade, it won't be China.
And as an authoritarian billionaire, Trump admires the authoritarian billionaire ruling the Kremlin.

I think Putin will have Trumps number in any negotiation. With all his bluster and bravado, Trump will have to come out of any negotiation or deal with a "win" he can bring back to his voters. Otherwise the illusion of Trump as some sort of messiah is fatally punctured. Putin is nowhere near as desperate because he has not promised as much as Trump. He can afford for any "grand bargain" to fail. So he can sit back and wait as Trump gets increasingly desperate for a PR win, and charge Trump full dollar for it in realpolitik concerns.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

One counter I would give to that is the need for Congress to pass a proper budget and end sequestration for the military. It has had a seriously negative impact on readiness and training. I'm not confident that a Clinton lead Presidency is going to have much success negotiating with Congress.

I agree, the Republican tradition has an almost instinctive bile for the Clintons which doesn't bode well for co-operation. However, I'd hope the Trump "experience" would seriously sober up the Republican leadership. The wider American public seem to have an intense distaste for obstructionist politics, the rise of Trump is a symptom of Americans seeking an alternative to it. If the Republicans continue to pursue extremist resistance to any Democrat presidency on every policy, they simply open themselves up to being subverted by populist/Tea Party elements which are actually quite hostile to the Republican party. If the Republicans continue to court the lunatic fringe, as a responsible part of government they will ultimately lose.

briany

endacl wrote: »

With Bernie Sanders...

ITT: Bernie Sanders gets a mod reprimand, Atari Jaguar does not. And they say there's no bias...

kupus

http://rare.us/story/6-inconvenient-truths-about-hillary-clinton/

as bad as trump is, IMO she is worse. A liar a fraud and a cheat. Those things I expect from Trump. Not from the darling of the left.
She even set up a charity to hide her and bills millions away. How ****ty is that for a person that thinks their sh1te dont stink.
There is plenty more stuff about clintons deals online. If you are interested you can start with the first link.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

ITT: Bernie Sanders gets a mod reprimand, Atari Jaguar does not. And they say there's no bias...

The warning was for a comment which added nothing to the discussion. Please do not discuss forum moderation on thread. You can voice your concerns to a CMod, Mod, Admin or post a thread in Feedback.

Billy86

kupus wrote: »

http://rare.us/story/6-inconvenient-truths-about-hillary-clinton/

as bad as trump is, IMO she is worse. A liar a fraud and a cheat. Those things I expect from Trump. Not from the darling of the left.
She even set up a charity to hide her and bills millions away. How ****ty is that for a person that thinks their sh1te dont stink.
There is plenty more stuff about clintons deals online. If you are interested you can start with the first link.

So Clinton is more dangerous to the world than Trump because she is a liar, fraud and a cheat... even though you say yourself that Trump is a liar, a fraud and a cheat?


The Economist puts Trump as the 5th biggest threat to the global economy (tied with Jihadi extremists), I'll be going with him as most dangerous by a long shot.

WarZ

It is definitely less of a risk under Clinton. No one knows how Trump will react. I just posted in another thread that the fact the he is so concerned about what other people think may ensure that he is a decent president. On the other hand, I worry that he will be so afraid of showing any kind of weakness that he will engage in conflict whenever challenged. There's also the worry that other leaders will be able to exploit this insecurity to ensure Trump does their bidding.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

There's also the worry that other leaders will be able to exploit this insecurity to ensure Trump does their bidding.

I think the Kremlin would certainly try to play up to his ego.

Having said that, The same Kremlin has spent the last 8 years totally outwitting Obama/Clinton/Kerry for 8 years repeatedly.

No one has actually posted how 'the Hilary doctrine' makes this little blue planet any safer.
Plus, the premise does not address what makes the world 'safer'.

Did the current administration's weakening of the military make the world stronger?
Does the diminishing of US hegemony, to the increase of a Sino/Russian version of same make the world safer?

The premise of the thread seems incomplete.

WarZ

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I think the Kremlin would certainly try to play up to his ego.

Having said that, The same Kremlin has spent the last 8 years totally outwitting Obama/Clinton/Kerry for 8 years repeatedly.

No one has actually posted how 'the Hilary doctrine' makes this little blue planet any safer.
Plus, the premise does not address what makes the world 'safer'.

Did the current administration's weakening of the military make the world stronger?
Does the diminishing of US hegemony, to the increase of a Sino/Russian version of same make the world safer?

The premise of the thread seems incomplete.

Well the US over exerting itself is definitely not good for US interests in the long term. The US needs to take a back seat for awhile and recover from its current economic woes to do otherwise would be foolish.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

The US needs to take a back seat for awhile and recover from its current economic woes to do otherwise would be foolish.

The US economy is doing OK.
Besides that, why should it withdraw?
And how does that make the world safer?

Power abhores a vacuum.
A withdrawn US leaves a void.
Will what fills it make the world safer?

oscarBravo

WarZ wrote: »

No one knows how Trump will react. I just posted in another thread that the fact the he is so concerned about what other people think may ensure that he is a decent president.

It hasn't ensured he's a decent candidate, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

oneten

badabing106 wrote: »

The old saying " the dog that barks loudest has the weakest bite"

Donald Trump probably isn't going to be President and he is probably not a Hitler type figure , as the media are trying to portray.



Hillary Clinton has a record of authorizing the Iraq war and pushing heavily for the invasion of Libya.

"We came, we saw, he died,” . She is not shy to go in guns blazing

Do you think Donald Trump would be any worse?



In your opinion, Would the world be a safer place under Hiliary Clinton or Donald Trump? Should either of them get elected

Just for clarity, can you give us some examples of countries in which the mighty usa has intervened militarily and made a positive contribution to world safety ?

InTheTrees

oneten wrote: »

Just for clarity, can you give us some examples of countries in which the mighty usa has intervened militarily and made a positive contribution to world safety ?

If you mean using the US Military abroad i'd say one was the Ebola Crisis. If the US Military hadnt been present they couldn't have established the safe treatment zones needed to get the epidemic under control.

Also the Philippine Hurricane. There was a US aircraft carrier off the coast within 24 hours. helicoptering in aid.

Manic Moran

Just for clarity, can you give us some examples of countries in which the mighty usa has intervened militarily and made a positive contribution to world safety ?

Germany? Japan? Korea? Liberia? Yugoslavia? (I presume you mean 'intervened militarily with loaded guns and orders to use them, and not just intervened with military equipment to help in disasters (or piracy) or make a point like the South China Sea or the Baltic states)

I would submit that most of the world's safety issues tend not to spring from the US. Look at the various violences which have been going on of late, from Georgia through Ukraine, Indonesia through Sudan, Syria through Brazil. US involvement has generally been relatively limited when it comes to things which are making the world a dangerous place.

Indeed, Ukraine seems to be a very definite case in point of the confidence of American -inaction-. Note how various European countries are realising that the peace dividend of the post-cold-war era and relying on US support has been a false beacon, and are increasing their expenditure. The Germans, for example, last year announced an increase in their tank force of 50% at the same time as the US announced a return of its tanks to Europe (A year prior, all US heavy units left Germany). Poland is doubling its force of Leopard tanks. The Baltic states, looking at what's been going on to their South, have gone on a spending binge for military hardware, even as the US announced basing of an armored brigade to the area.

Honestly, if Trump or Clinton become president, or Kasich or Sanders, I don't think the world as a whole will become any more or less safe. (Though the ability of the US to react to dangers may change.)

sxt

Japan?? You think the world is a safer place now that every major country has been forced to arm themselves to the teeth with Nuclear weapons as a consequence of US actions. Really?

The president of America, Truman, told the world that is was neccessary to drop these atomic bombs to save many lives on both sides, his propaganda is taken as truth by manyas a justification to this day

The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.
Harry S. Truman



When you consider that Japans Navy was wiped out,their Air force was wiped out (except for a few sporadic kamikaze planes), and their ground forces/ strategic postions were anihilated by heavy bombardment by thousands of regular bombs ,Japan were of absolutely no threat to the U.S.A

This is the word of every important person in actual hands on charge of the actual military operation



President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."


Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the
bomb was used.


Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.



General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific,

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"



Ukraine?The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.


Syria. The US invasion of Syria and Iraq helped give birth to Isis.the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Sria

oneten

" US involvement has generally been relatively limited when it comes to things which are making the world a dangerous place."

You must be joking ?
The US had nothing to do with what happened in Syria ?? they had their fingers in it from the get go, same in ukraine, what about Libya ? Afghanistan ?
European countries are beefing up their military forces because of what threat ?

WarZ

oneten wrote: »

" US involvement has generally been relatively limited when it comes to things which are making the world a dangerous place."

You must be joking ?
The US had nothing to do with what happened in Syria ?? they had their fingers in it from the get go, same in ukraine, what about Libya ? Afghanistan ?
European countries are beefing up their military forces because of what threat ?

Yeah US involvement in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Somalia made them so much better.

The US has made the Middle East even more of a tinder box than it was previously and that is some feat.

Also for anyone to mention the US making Japan safer needs to actually re-read history. The US dropped not one but TWO nukes on Japanese cities despite the fact that Japan was already ready to surrender and had effectually lost the war. The myth that the US saved more lives by dropping the bomb and forcing Japan to surrender is just that, a myth. The Japanese ruler was ready to surrender before the first atomic bomb hit Hiroshima and America were well aware of this.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

The US has made the Middle East even more of a tinder box than it was previously and that is some feat.

Do you think the likely new president will improve the middle east?
Or would you prefer her to withdraw?

WarZ

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Do you think the likely new president will improve the middle east?
Or would you prefer her to withdraw?

It's impossible to withdraw at this stage.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

It's impossible to withdraw at this stage.

Why?

it's a USAF base in Qatar, one in Kuwait & one rather mobile CGB.

Why can this not be withdrawn?
It would certainly make people happier that the imperialists have gone home.

Then the middle east will prosper under the Sino/Russian hegemony tha replaces it?

WarZ

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why?

it's a USAF base in Qatar, one in Kuwait & one rather mobile CGB.

Why can this not be withdrawn?
It would certainly make people happier that the imperialists have gone home.

Then the middle east will prosper under the Sino/Russian hegemony tha replaces it?

I don't know how this relevant to the point I made earlier.

Having bases is not intervening. The poster I was responding to was arguing that US intervention has generally been good. That is patently untrue. Over a million dead in Iraq and still counting to this day, consequences still being felt in Afghanistan with hundreds of thousands dead and still counting to this day, Libya becoming an utterly unstable and extremist country.

The US has been responsible for much of the recent unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. If they had stayed out of Iraq and Libya for example there would be millions still alive today and I doubt Syria would ever had manifested in the way that it has.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

The US has been responsible for much of the recent unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. If they had stayed out of Iraq and Libya for example there would be millions still alive today and I doubt Syria would ever had manifested in the way that it has.

OK. ... so, the USA is terrible.... but they should not withdraw from the middle east?

obvious contradiction there, no?

WarZ

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

OK. ... so, the USA is terrible.... but they should not withdraw from the middle east?

obvious contradiction there, no?

I was talking about their interventions in the Middle East which have caused the loss of millions of civilian lives. How can that not be seen as terrible?

Their policy has been nothing short of awful but unfortunately they have created a situation where their withdrawal will make a situation that they created even worse, which is probably exactly what they wanted in the first place.

Had the US never intervened as they have done in the Middle East then we would have probably seen a balance of powers between the Sunni Gulf and Shia Iran.

BoJack Horseman

WarZ wrote: »

I was talking about their interventions in the Middle East which have caused the loss of millions of civilian lives. How can that not be seen as terrible?

I'm agreeing with you, they are terrible.

they have created a situation where their withdrawal will make a situation that they created even worse

Is there any proof for this?

I say because the US military deployment is actually very small

Here is how it currently breaks down (as of last summer)


Now, this excludes the 3,500 deployed to Iraq (who must be wearing sandalss cos Obama promised no boots on the ground).

But you can see that all told, its around 10,000... and a large slice of this number are civilian or uniformed non-combat personnel.

As a comparison, this amounts to 1/6th the total that the US has deployed to Europe (something people may find surprising).

My point is, the Middle-east can survive fine without what is in actual fact a pretty modest occupation.

Now, wrt the point of the thread, of the two likely candidates, Trump is much more likely to withdraw the US's unwanted presence.
Can it not be argued that he serves peace better?

Manic Moran

sxt wrote: »

Japan?? You think the world is a safer place now that every major country has been forced to arm themselves to the teeth with Nuclear weapons as a consequence of US actions. Really?

And the world would not have been armed to the teeth without nuclear weapons? Last I checked, of all the millions of people who died violent deaths since WW2, not a single one of them was killed by a nuclear weapon. Conventional, and, to a point, chemical weapons, seem to have done well enough, no? How would you go about concluding that the killings in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, or the Bosnians by the Serbs were the result of the dropping of the A-Bombs? What was the event which finally seems to have stopped the Serbians from their rampages? Clue: It wasn't their getting bored.

Japan was on a policy of violent expansion, and not a particularly benevolent one. The Chinese, Koreans, Filippinos etc all have pretty cut and dry opinions on that matter. Whether the US ended the war with Atomic weapons or not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that overall the world in January 1946 was substantially safer for most folks than the world in was in January 1945.

As to WarZ's comment that "The poster I was responding to was arguing that US intervention has generally been good.", I will presume he was referring to me since I was the last person not slandering the US on that quote thread. I would point out that that was not what I said. I said that there seems to be plenty of violence without much US involvement. It's not as if one can point at the hundreds of thousands killed in Darfour over the past decade and say "American interference did that." Ditto most everywhere else, from Sri Lanka to Timor. If you want to focus on only a small part of the world, sure,US got involved in Libya, and let's stipulate that it didn't exactly help in the final result. US didn't really get involved in Syria. That is hardly a vacation spot today either. Is it not possible to conclude that those countries were messes anyway? Perhaps the US would have been better off for its own self to have not gotten involved and saved some money, but there's little reason to believe that those situations made matters substantially worse.

WarZ

Manic Moran wrote: »

And the world would not have been armed to the teeth without nuclear weapons? Last I checked, of all the millions of people who died violent deaths since WW2, not a single one of them was killed by a nuclear weapon. Conventional, and, to a point, chemical weapons, seem to have done well enough, no? How would you go about concluding that the killings in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, or the Bosnians by the Serbs were the result of the dropping of the A-Bombs? What was the event which finally seems to have stopped the Serbians from their rampages? Clue: It wasn't their getting bored.

Japan was on a policy of violent expansion, and not a particularly benevolent one. The Chinese, Koreans, Filippinos etc all have pretty cut and dry opinions on that matter. Whether the US ended the war with Atomic weapons or not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that overall the world in January 1946 was substantially safer for most folks than the world in was in January 1945.

As to WarZ's comment that "The poster I was responding to was arguing that US intervention has generally been good.", I will presume he was referring to me since I was the last person not slandering the US on that quote thread. I would point out that that was not what I said. I said that there seems to be plenty of violence without much US involvement. It's not as if one can point at the hundreds of thousands killed in Darfour over the past decade and say "American interference did that." Ditto most everywhere else, from Sri Lanka to Timor. If you want to focus on only a small part of the world, sure,US got involved in Libya, and let's stipulate that it didn't exactly help in the final result. US didn't really get involved in Syria. That is hardly a vacation spot today either. Is it not possible to conclude that those countries were messes anyway? Perhaps the US would have been better off for its own self to have not gotten involved and saved some money, but there's little reason to believe that those situations made matters substantially worse.

The key point you're missing is that Japan was about to surrender BEFORE the atomic bombs were dropped. The US didn't need to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians but went ahead and did it anyway to show off their new weapon to the Russians.

"the U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped"

Manic Moran

WarZ wrote: »

The key point you're missing is that Japan was about to surrender BEFORE the atomic bombs were dropped. The US didn't need to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians but went ahead and did it anyway to show off their new weapon to the Russians.

"the U.S. had already intercepted communications from Japan showing that the emperor had asked the Russians to mediate a surrender, and almost every top U.S. military leader from the time later came forward saying that Japan was already defeated before the bombs were dropped"

I'm not missing the point, I'm ignoring it as irrelevant.

The question was 'examples of countries in which the mighty usa has intervened militarily and made a positive contribution to world safety'

The method used is not germaine to this question. Had they dropped A-Bombs, or had they continued firebombing (Remember, the death tolls from firebombing were higher than the death tolls from the A-Bombs), or simply done an old-fashioned invasion, Japanese invasion and occupation of various Pacific countries was brought to a halt. If you don't -like- that they used A-Bombs in particular, that's another topic of discussion.

Fathom

badabing106 wrote: »

Do you think Donald Trump would be any worse?

Worse. Leaves NATO. Breaks NAFTA. Torture. Deports 11 million. Trump Wall. Bans Muslims. Bromances Putin. Increases trade tariffs. Wastes taxes building military.

BoJack Horseman

What would be wrong with the USA leaving NATO? (I'm unsure that is a Trump policy anyway?).
Donald's views wrt NATO are very similar to those of Sanders.... though Bernie seems more bellicose towards China.
Trump has not really outlined his plans for defence spending, other than saying he would increase it.... but, coupled with him cancelling the F35 programme, this may still save the taxpayers money.

Manic Moran

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Trump has not really outlined his plans for defence spending, other than saying he would increase it.... but, coupled with him cancelling the F35 programme, this may still save the taxpayers money.

It would be interesting to see how a businessman might run the DoD's acquisition program. The current system is so ridiculously long and expensive, with so many checks and balances against corruption, faulty products, etc (and the occasional 'pork for the local congresscritter' that we're paying far too much for anything we get.

Last week the head of the Army, well known for his dislike of this long process, hit the headlines.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/27/army-chief-you-want-new-pistol-send-me-cabelas-17-million/82132450/

“We’re not figuring out the next lunar landing. This is a pistol. Two years to test? At $17 million?” Milley said to an audience at a Washington, D.C., think tank on March 10. “You give me $17 million on a credit card, and I’ll call Cabela’s tonight, and I’ll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a pistol for $17 million. And I’ll get a discount on a bulk buy.”

(Cabela's is a chain sporting goods store)

BoJack Horseman

That's excruciating.

The army is being cut to 30 combat brigades but it takes 9 years to decide on a pistol only a tiny fraction of uniformed personnel will ever use in anger.

I doubt any presidential candidate can do anything about that.
The Byzantine nature of government working has defeated all comers before.

hatrickpatrick

They'd both be absolute pants. I'd wager that Trump would be slightly safer because he wants to stay neutral on Israel/Palestine and generally avoid getting more Americans killed in pointless wars. On foreign policy he's nowhere near as right wing as Clinton. But his whole "America needs to start winning again" agenda is a bit frightening in the sense that you can imagine him essentially destroying a whole crapload of polite diplomacy in f*cked up parts of the world for the sake of bragging rights. So it's hard to tell.

Obviously Bernie Sanders would be far, far superior to either of them, mainly because unlike either, he doesn't appear to have an American exceptionalist attitude wherein America and its allies get to break the rules just because. In my view, if the November election comes down to Trump vs Clinton, the world is going to be f*cked for four years either way.

hatrickpatrick

Fathom wrote: »

Torture.

Same with Clinton TBH, she was part of the administration which refused to prosecute anyone after the torture report came out. Which is one of the many reasons I label her a right wing war hawk.

BoJack Horseman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Obviously Bernie Sanders would be far, far superior to either of them

If Bernie wins the nomination, at some point some journo is going ask more from Sanders.

The guy is no more detailed on policy than anyone else..... and what little there is rather aggressive.



I struggle to see how China (who are quick to find slight) will see this as anything other than a defacto declaration of war....

I don't understand how Sanders get's the free passes that he does.....
As it stands, his China policy is insanity.

hatrickpatrick

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If Bernie wins the nomination, at some point some journo is going ask more from Sanders.

The guy is no more detailed on policy than anyone else..... and what little there is rather aggressive.

So refusing to do business with people who are violating your ethical standards is "aggressive"?

I struggle to see how China (who are quick to find slight) will see this as anything other than a defacto declaration of war....

I don't understand how Sanders get's the free passes that he does.....
As it stands, his China policy is insanity.

So another case of local interests should trump (pun intended >_>) doing the right thing?

BoJack Horseman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So refusing to do business with people who are violating your ethical standards is "aggressive"?

Yes, when it is only to the end of trying to prevent the PLA from improving it's capabilities...
This isn't about human rights. it is clearly stated it is to inhibit China's military improvement.

So another case of local interests should trump doing the right thing?

What is it about sanctioning 3rd parties for trading defence tech to China is the "right thing"?

Off the top of my head, the sanctioned countries under commander Bernie would primarily be Russia, Ukraine, France & Germany.... and probably the USA if one want's to count Boeing's & Sikorsky's (government authorised) sales to the PLA

Again, what is it about placing the worlds 2nd largest economy & 2nd most powerful military under sanction "The right thing"?

What is it about going after China's trading partners thus directly impacting the PLA's procurement plans anything other than a direct threat to them?

How would it look if the world placed Germany, Sweden & the UK under sanctions for doing the exact same thing with the US? (They being large suppliers of defence technology to the US's DOD)

Fathom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Trump has not really outlined his plans for defence spending, other than saying he would increase it....

"Increase?" Why? Exceeds 25 nation EU. 3X China. Huge tax waste now. No outline? Typical Trump. All talk. No depth.

BoJack Horseman

Fathom wrote: »

"Increase?" Why?

Because the short-sighted cuts of the last 4 years have resulted in the penny-wise-pound-foolish outcome of procurement and maintenance being deferred, thus increasing costs & front line troop numbers being slashed.

And increasing it is exactly what St Obama is doing.
Trump is espousing the continuation of Barry's trajectory.

And nothing can be more redundant than comparing their spending to Europe (which th USe spends billions defending) or China where the salary for an enlisted soldier is roughly 1/16th that of a US one.

What China does with it's military budget will come more to peoples attention if Bernie is commander in chief & continues to press his China policy to it's conclusion.

Susandublin

One would need to ask how important is the post. Do that actually have power or just the face of the real power makers and decision makers. Obama could have been great (talked a good talk in any case) but didn't achiene as much as hoped - the revers could be true - someone really bad could be prevented from being terrible as the main decision makers will not be influenced and will do their own thing anyway - won't make that big a difference who is in power - also we habnt see the real Trump yet - this is the face of truth to win the republican vote - it he is going for president in the final 2 horse race it will most likely be a different personality and less crazy to appeal to the masses. Very very smart guy - not to be under rated.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Because the short-sighted cuts of the last 4 years have resulted in the penny-wise-pound-foolish outcome of procurement and maintenance being deferred, thus increasing costs & front line troop numbers being slashed.

And increasing it is exactly what St Obama is doing.
Trump is espousing the continuation of Barry's trajectory.

And nothing can be more redundant than comparing their spending to Europe (which th USe spends billions defending) or China where the salary for an enlisted soldier is roughly 1/16th that of a US one.

What China does with it's military budget will come more to peoples attention if Bernie is commander in chief & continues to press his China policy to it's conclusion.

The measure for me of a candidates commitment to a sound defensive strategy would be their choice of Secretary and willingness to challenge some of the big ticket items hanging like albatrosses around the neck of the Pentagon. How many programs and Divisions are being sacrificed paying for the procurement of systems that not scheduled to be functional for years to come at best?