Donald Trump

beach_walker

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the only way they could have avoided helping Europe would be to surrender.

Or even helping it all kick off to begin with

LorMal

WarZ wrote: »

Lebanon is an absolutely fantastic place to live. Beirut is probably my favourite city in the world.

I have spent plenty of time there. It's very vulnerable

BoatMad

LorMal wrote: »

It's relevant because of all the US hatred in here. The truth is that, while America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, it s a far more humane and peace loving nation than many many others.

Let's for one second imagine what the world would be like if Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Indonesia, China...etc was the superpower instead.

Lets have a bit of honesty. They may throw their weight around a bit, but Thank God we have them or we would be all part of the glorious 1000 year Third Reich, or the great USSR now.

You miss the point, I like the US, I dont like its foreign policy and its recent military "adventures"

Lets have a bit of honesty. They may throw their weight around a bit, but Thank God we have them or we would be all part of the glorious 1000 year Third Reich, or the great USSR now.

Yes lets have honesty , any reading of WW2 history will show that the germans were essentially defeated by the USSR. D-day was primarily to save western europe from becoming totally under the influence of the USSR as both the UK and the USA realised early on that the next real enemy would be the USSR.

The truth is that, while America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, it s a far more humane and peace loving nation than many many others.

it may be , but its foreign policy and particularly its military interventions have been disastrous , badly thought out and driven by domestic politics then by any understanding of the issues in the ME.

This is not " hatred " of Americans, its a critical examination of its actions

LorMal

BoatMad wrote: »

You miss the point, I like the US, I dont like its foreign policy and its recent military "adventures"



Yes lets have honesty , any reading of WW2 history will show that the germans were essentially defeated by the USSR. D-day was primarily to save western europe from becoming totally under the influence of the USSR as both the UK and the USA realised early on that the next real enemy would be the USSR.



it may be , but its foreign policy and particularly its military interventions have been disastrous , badly thought out and driven by domestic politics then by any understanding of the issues in the ME.

This is not " hatred " of Americans, its a critical examination of its actions

No problem having a critical examination of US foreign policy. The issue arises when every negative event in the ME is traced back to the U.S.
It's the realm of the left wing undergraduate - no balance.
(Btw, DDay was about defeating the Germans. They held out for over a year at the cost of millions of lives. The Battle was initially in the balance for the first few weeks and could have easily been lost). 'Any reading of WW2 history' will tell you that. The U.S. were fundamental in defeating the Nazis - as were the Russians. The threat posed by the USSR only came into focus in late 1944 when it was very clear that the war was won)

osarusan

This made me laugh.

BoatMad

LorMal wrote: »

No problem having a critical examination of US foreign policy. The issue arises when every negative event in the ME is traced back to the U.S.
It's the realm of the left wing undergraduate - no balance.
(Btw, DDay was about defeating the Germans. They held out for over a year at the cost of millions of lives. The Battle was initially in the balance for the first few weeks and could have easily been lost). 'Any reading of WW2 history' will tell you that. The U.S. were fundamental in defeating the Nazis - as were the Russians. The threat posed by the USSR only came into focus in late 1944 when it was very clear that the war was won)

its self evident t that not " every " event in the ME can be laid at the door of the US. However it provided the enormous perturbation that opened the door to all sorts of fundamentalism. my biggest beef is that this was done to assuage a domestic audience in the US that "something" was being done on the " war on terror ".

Germany had list the war after the failure of the eastern front and by 1942 it was all over for germany , it then fought a battle of retreat.

churchill realised far too late as did the US, that Stalin would not hold to his promises and that he intended to put all of europe under the Soviet sphere of influence, D-Day was primarily designed to rush to Berlin to attempt to prevent the spread of the USSR across the whole of western Europe. The soviets would not have stopped until they reached the Med.

In that regard the USA saved "us" from the " reds" not the germans

Greyjoy

BoatMad wrote: »

churchill realised far too late as did the US, that Stalin would not hold to his promises and that he intended to put all of europe under the Soviet sphere of influence, D-Day was primarily designed to rush to Berlin to attempt to prevent the spread of the USSR across the whole of western Europe. The soviets would not have stopped until they reached the Med.

In that regard the USA saved "us" from the " reds" not the germans

If that was the case why did Stalin repeatedly urge Churchill & Roosevelt to open up the second front in Europe? Stalin wanted the D-Day landings to take place much earlier than they actually did.

BoatMad

Greyjoy wrote: »

If that was the case why did Stalin repeatedly urge Churchill & Roosevelt to open up the second front in Europe? Stalin wanted the D-Day landings to take place much earlier than they actually did.

because anything that further weakened the germans , facilitated the USSR expansion into Europe, The allies realised too late that the soviets were not going to abide by their undertakings in Europe

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

When's the next election?

Kind of hard to have one after an US backed coup attempt destoy the nascent democracy:

US plotted to overthrow Hamas after election victory

This has directly lead to the current split in Palestinian leadership, and very possibly the first nail in the coffin of the 2 state solution.

scream

Christy42 wrote: »

Right so Clinton should have organised the invasion of every middle eastern country the US didn't invade and not invade every middle eastern country it did?

Assad, Gaddafi and Sadam were horrific individuals. Some of the rebuilding (well a lot) could have been done better but they were stabilising forces in that they killed any opposition. I did love the post going around recently of Libya being some sort of paradise under Gaddafi.

As for Trump. What is his foreign policy? How exactly is he going to avoid wars trying to chase down all the families of terrorists? I am still waiting for someone to make sense of this wall.

As vile as Gaddaffi and Sadam were, they kept the terrorists out of Europe, broadly speaking. They had a crush the fcukers attitude to the various tribal power struggles and uprisings which kept things under control, whereas the Western leaders are hamstrung by liberals who don't want airstrikes or ground troops because civilians might be injured or killed. It's war, that's what happens in war. Too many buttercups and not enough buckling up.

RDM_83 again

scream wrote: »

Too many buttercups and not enough buckling up.

If your not already speech writer for a Republican you should definitely consider a career change!

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

LorMal

BoatMad wrote: »

its self evident t that not " every " event in the ME can be laid at the door of the US. However it provided the enormous perturbation that opened the door to all sorts of fundamentalism. my biggest beef is that this was done to assuage a domestic audience in the US that "something" was being done on the " war on terror ".

Germany had list the war after the failure of the eastern front and by 1942 it was all over for germany , it then fought a battle of retreat.

churchill realised far too late as did the US, that Stalin would not hold to his promises and that he intended to put all of europe under the Soviet sphere of influence, D-Day was primarily designed to rush to Berlin to attempt to prevent the spread of the USSR across the whole of western Europe. The soviets would not have stopped until they reached the Med.

In that regard the USA saved "us" from the " reds" not the germans

Your biggest beef is bull****. There was a war on terror (no need for sarcastic inverted commas) . It started because a bunch of fundamentalist half-wits thought they would get 75 virgins each if they destroyed 3,000 human beings in the WTC. The domestic audience (by which you mean the citizens of the US) wanted to fight back.How unreasonable.
Grow up and be thankful you are not depending on the mighty Irish Army to protect you from ISIS, Al Qaeda and the rest of the madmen.

LorMal

BoatMad wrote: »

because anything that further weakened the germans , facilitated the USSR expansion into Europe, The allies realised too late that the soviets were not going to abide by their undertakings in Europe

Just not true. The Germans needed to be beaten - they were still incredibly strong - as they proved. The Soviets would not have achieved this singlehandedly. It required war on 2 fronts and the might of the US forces.

If Stalin wanted to take all of Europe then - he would not have demanded, pleaded and threatened until the Allies finally launched D-Day. He would have been happy for them to stay away while he rolled over Europe.
Didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

RobertKK

Hillary/Trump debates are going to be the political TV moments of 2016.

Listening to Hillary attack Trump and she was good, but then she talks BS like the US is the last hope on Earth. No other countries come to the US in terms of values.

Hillary attacking Trump most viciously right now.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary/Trump debates are going to be the political TV moments of 2016.

Listening to Hillary attack Trump and she was good, but then she talks BS like the US is the last hope on Earth. No other countries come to the US in terms of values.

Hillary attacking Trump most viciously right now.

Meanwhile Trump shouts names at journalists who ask questions...... I can honestly say, I do not expect an argument with an actual logical argument, coming from Trump at this point...

Magico Gonzalez

LorMal wrote: »

Berserker wrote: »

Irish people don't realize this. They seem to think that the success or failure of our economy is largely or even solely dependent on what goes on in our corridors of power. I would chose Trump over Clinton myself, for social reasons but the consequences of him following through on his threats regarding corporate taxation could be huge for the RoI.

Why do you think 'Irish people don't realise this'. How come you are one of the elite few who have so much more wisdom and insight than the rest of us?

I am sure the vast majority of Irish people know our economy is heavily supported by US multinationals based here.

It's heavily supported by US inaction around tax "mitigation" strategies which the irish economy has made it's bread and butter. Once the double irish tax treaties get picked apart Ireland will have a lot of work to do to keep the big MNC's domiciled in Ireland.

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary/Trump debates are going to be the political TV moments of 2016.

Listening to Hillary attack Trump and she was good, but then she talks BS like the US is the last hope on Earth. No other countries come to the US in terms of values.

Hillary attacking Trump most viciously right now.

I think she really has to. He has had such an easy ride so far. Her only hope is to scrap like hell. She is good at that.
He's very good at absorbing punches though. and he really doesn't care what he has to say - he'll say it - no limits.
Not a great way to choose a leader.

LorMal

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

It's heavily supported by US inaction around tax "mitigation" strategies which the irish economy has made it's bread and butter. Once the double irish tax treaties get picked apart Ireland will have a lot of work to do to keep the big MNC's domiciled in Ireland.

That was my point

RobertKK

Trump watching Hillary and tweeting...he makes me laugh.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/738449664752553984

Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

I think she really has to. He has had such an easy ride so far. Her only hope is to scrap like hell. She is good at that.
He's very good at absorbing punches though. and he really doesn't care what he has to say - he'll say it - no limits.
Not a great way to choose a leader.

Her problem is while she was attacking Trump, she conveniently left out all her own monumental mistakes in foreign policy, so it is easy for her to attack Trump when she has no one there to tackle her on why she is just as disastrous.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Your biggest beef is bull****. There was a war on terror (no need for sarcastic inverted commas) . It started because a bunch of fundamentalist half-wits thought they would get 75 virgins each if they destroyed 3,000 human beings in the WTC. The domestic audience (by which you mean the citizens of the US) wanted to fight back .How unreasonable.
Grow up and be thankful you are not depending on the mighty Irish Army to protect you from ISIS, Al Qaeda and the rest of the madmen.

And almost every country in the region, besides the one which supplied the terrorists, and of which there seem to be suspicious links between the terrorists and the highest echelons of the royal family, including the ambassador to America's family, has been targeted during this "war on terror".

How selective can you possibly be in your reading of history? I'm not saying they should have attacked Saudi instead, I'm just saying they should have refrained from attacking and destabilizing literally everyone else. Long term pressure to democratize and educate would have cost a lot less both in terms of money and life, and led to far more stable outcomes.

Do you accept that the whole Iraq invasion was sold to both the US and UK populations via lies? Does that not make you a little suspicious? Especially with the dossiers and declassified documents were being made privvy to as time goes on that show what was really going on in the background.

And I love Americans - I believe they're lead by 2 branches of the same party however, much like the communist party controls China. I don't dislike the Chinese for that. And I presume were I to point out Chinese aggression such as their latest forays into the south China Sea, you wouldn't presume it's because I'm some Chinese hating maniac.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump watching Hillary and tweeting...he makes me laugh.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/738449664752553984

Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!

I don't know what's amusing about someone treating the presidential election to the most powerful nation in the world as some kind of 4chan 'flame hate' war.

Collie D

What state was he born in?

Warning: I may or may not be involved in a pub quiz

And "a terrible one" has already been ruled out as incorrect

Billy86

Collie D wrote: »

What state was he born in?

Warning: I may or may not be involved in a pub quiz

And "a terrible one" has already been ruled out as incorrect

Wyoming.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't know what's amusing about someone treating the presidential election to the most powerful nation in the world as some kind of 4chan 'flame hate' war.

You would have to laugh at both of them.
Hillary Clinton touted her speech as being a foreign policy speech, she failed to discuss her foreign policy and her own disastrous actions, her speech ended up being about words Trump said as if they are more dangerous than actions.
Trump has the words.
Clinton has the actions.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You would have to laugh at both of them.
Hillary Clinton touted her speech as being a foreign policy speech, she failed to discuss her foreign policy and her own disastrous actions, her speech ended up being about words Trump said as if they are more dangerous than actions.
Trump has the words.
Clinton has the actions.

I won't be back from work for the next hour or two but will check her speech in full after. Not a Clinton fan either myself just for the record, just cannot believe how dumbed down this election cycle has been in favour of personality politics.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

You would have to laugh at both of them.
Hillary Clinton touted her speech as being a foreign policy speech, she failed to discuss her foreign policy and her own disastrous actions, her speech ended up being about words Trump said as if they are more dangerous than actions.
Trump has the words.
Clinton has the actions.

You know he hasn't had a chance to do anything yet? Like he will be expected to enact the policies that got him elected?

Going on your policy you just elect the least experienced candidate every time.

Winterlong

Billy86 wrote: »

I won't be back from work for the next hour or two but will check her speech in full after. Not a Clinton fan either myself just for the record, just cannot believe how dumbed down this election cycle has been in favour of personality politics.

I am half expecting the X Factor judges to host the 1st debate between Trump and Clinton.

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

Her problem is while she was attacking Trump, she conveniently left out all her own monumental mistakes in foreign policy, so it is easy for her to attack Trump when she has no one there to tackle her on why she is just as disastrous.

You think she should have pointed out her 'monumental mistakes'?