Jump to content


Trump Foreign Policy

BigRedBuster

By BigRedBuster,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

Making Chimichangas Travel Squad

Making Chimichangas

Posted
Posted

Jalopnik: Why firing Tomahawks at Syria was nearly useless http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

 

That's sobering.

 

As in the past, whether it be a collection of tents in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan or a retaliatory strike for a no-fly zone violation in Iraq, the Tomahawk cruise missile has become the punitive weapon of choice. It’s fired from a safe distance, risking no American lives, and presenting the appearance of someone doing something vital.

 

I don't know how to feel about this new war with Syria. I don't like that better options than this didn't appear to exist.

 

And:

 

 

The strike happened what. Last night? Two nights ago?

I think we've learned that the appearance of doing something or caring is more important than actually doing something.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

JJ Husker Head Coach

JJ Husker

Posted
Posted

 

My wish.... :facepalm:I propose that the "quote" function be modified to only accept complete text and full context quoting. :P

I know, I know -- it's why I mentioned my exception as well.However, a point I am trying to make is that this "nonpolitician" sort of argument is what gets people like Trump elected. I do not think the proposition has nearly as much value as its appeal suggests.

I'm talking down home, honest to goodness business people that understand the whole gamut of our citizenry and know how to get things done. By and large, I think 99% of our politicians suck at doing things that we really need done or that don't harm large segments of our population. Today's typical politician types are not the answer. Problem is, no honest person with pure intentions wants to go to would be caught dead in DC.

I challenge parts of this view and agree with other parts. Our politicians don't suck -- politics is a hard game. Once people are put into the role of a politician you'll find that they are not immune to all the challenges and foibles that come with it.An example of a good businessman-turned-politician is Michael Bloomberg. Independent, mayor of NYC, might've mounted a credible presidential campaign in 2016. The key for me isn't merely that he's a businessman, however. It's that he moved into politics and proved to be effective at it as a mayor.Thus, "nonpolitician" presidential candidates to me are people who shifted career paths but then demonstrated their potential as a mayor, a representative, a Senator, etc. As opposed to people who were always on the politician's track -- the decorated political science majors who turn into constitutional law professors and practice as a civil rights attorney, for example. Honestly, I think we'd be better off with a lot more of those cerebral academics as policymakers than the wealthy/legacy/self-promoting or tub-thumping types that fill our state and federal chambers.

You raise some good points although I disagree wit your assessment that our politicians don't suck. Yes, they do. However it may not be all their fault. Our political system seems to foster continuation of the status quo and, when it does it change, it seems to be for the worse, not better. It's why things like the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal are so damaging. We continually set new lower bars, never to rise back above them.

 

Of course we have to consider each politician and potential POTUS individually. My blanket request for down home business types has to be tempered with many more factors. There is something to be said for career politicians that know how things work but what we seem to be missing are the people willing to change how they are working. Yes, absolutely that is the sentiment that allowed Trump to get elected. I don't think it means the desire is wrong but rather, the people need to do a much better job in vetting and thought process. Another way to look at it is, if our politicians didon't suck so bad, we wouldn't be so desperate to overlook the faults of somebody like Trump.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
zoogs Head Coach

zoogs

Posted
Posted

Yeah, +1 there. I just mean I don't think 99% of them are bad. But you put it well, it's more about what the system fosters, I think. And some of it is just fundamental limitations. It's hard to optimize a system that is about engaging different forces that disagree. We'll literally always be solving problems, taking steps forward and backward -- including with the process itself.

 

What this can't result in is total cynicism about it all. Because that's what gets us to overlook the faults of the worst, when we stop distinguishing them from anybody else in this imperfect shindig.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
NM11046 All-American

NM11046

Posted
Posted

POTUS casually defending his foreign policy on Twitter.

 

 

This is never going to stop being weird.

He is insane. I really thought this incident might humble him and get him into some sort of professional state of mind. I mean who tweets when you've just ok'd the bombing of another country?

 

I can't help but think - if he was a dem and all this was going on, one of the NRA members would have risked his life trying to take down POTUS. He's pretty lucky that the majority of people who really despise him don't carry.

Link to comment

zoogs Head Coach

zoogs

Posted
Posted

The Jalopnik article I posted earlier had a counter to this argument before it was presented:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

 

The Tomahawk does not neutralize runways for long, but other munitions do. However, these weapons were not an option because they would have required aircraft over the target, and there we're running the risk of actual conflict with Russian forces operating in the area.

 

So it's not that there's a blanket reason to not hit runways because they are easily repaired. It's that this option wasn't available. In fact, the only option that did appear to be available was a symbolic strike that accomplished nothing materially and apparently is useful or at least tolerable to the Russians and Syrians politically.

 

A symbolic strike or a shot across the bow can be a powerful statement, but not when it means nothing to those receiving it. Syria clearly understands that it can continue to act with relative impunity, particularly given that they seem to be hitting the same areas again, already.

 

This also begs the question of what this does for the U.S, if it accomplishes neither tactical nor strategic goals. Better question may be what it does for Trump. I share this WaPo columnist's perspective, which can also be summed up in an emoji: :bangMargaret Sullivan: The media loved Trump’s show of military might. Are we really doing this again?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

zoogs Head Coach

zoogs

Posted
Posted

 

What we are seeing, instead, is a foreign policy based on Trump’s gut reactions to the images flashing before him on cable news. And that’s dangerous. (...)
How about the simplest, but most effective, thing we could do to save Syrian lives and let Syrian children grow up in peace and prosperity: Let refugees from this horrific conflict resettle in the US — something Trump is trying to ban completely?
Well stated.
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...