|
Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Sane While Clinton’s Is Belligerent
Some highlights of a recent Donald Trump interview with Reuters:
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three," because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.
In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, Trump said defeating Islamic State is a higher priority than persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,..
Trump questioned how Clinton would negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin after demonizing him; blamed President Barack Obama for a downturn in U.S. relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte;…
Trump's foreign policy talk is far more sane than Clinton's and her camp's. It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home.
The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia – a big one – to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world. I would also provide secret support to any indigenous anti-U.S. movement anywhere. China would support Russia as its first line of self defense.
"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.
"You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.
…
On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.
On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.
The last two points are important. Trump, despite all his bluster, knows about decency. What is the point of arrogantly scolding negotiation partner who have the power to block agreements you want or need?
Why blame Russia for hacking wide open email servers when no Russian speakers were involved? Why blame Duterte? It is the U.S. that has a long history of violent racism in the Philippines and FBI agents committed false flag "terrorism" is Duterte's home town Davao. Bluster may paper over such history for a moment but it does not change the facts or helps solving problems.
Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere. But Hillary Clinton would put her husband, the man who deregulated Wall Street, back in charge of the economy. What do people expect the results would be?
The points above may be obvious and one might be tempted to just pass them and dig into some nig-nagging of this or that election detail. But the above points as THE most important of any election. The welfare of the people is not decided with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society. The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts. Clinton's preference is clearly, as her history shows, escalation and general belligerence. It is too risky to vote for her.
You are all wrong.
Anyone who seriously considers that voting…or NOT voting…for either of these creatures will change a goddamned thing is totally asleep to what has happened in the U.S. over the past 60+ years.
Gor read this article on today’s Counterpunch:
A Deep State of Mind: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup
=======================================================================================
Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”
— Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech
Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.
Say hello to America’s shadow government.
A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.
No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.
—snip—
==========================================================================================
Read the rest of the article.
All of it.
And then go take care of your own business as best you can. The status quo will remain…hidden in various ways as it has been hidden since the late ’40s/early ’50s…until it fails of its own doing. No amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything is going to change what is up here. The best any of us can do is to try to reach one mind at a time.
Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech:
==========================================================================================
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
==========================================================================================
It didn’t work then and it will work even less well now, in what we laughingly refer to as our “Information Age.”
It’s all over but the failing, and that could take a long, long while.
Or…it could be over in a nuclear instant.
Deal wid it.
Deal wid ’em both, and every other possibility in between.
All of the constant political jerking off in the media?
Just that.
A virtual reality constructed for the entertainment…and thus silencing and control of…the proles, using other ignorant proles as Judas goats.
Politics porn.
Fuggedaboudit!!!
Go do something real.
Please.
AG
Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 26 2016 16:12 utc | 43
@ rufus magister 86
I had assumed your link would be garbage, but took a look, anyway. In fact, it raises significant points. In particular, previously unknown (to me) details about his views about “taking the oil”.
I’m definitely for Trump, consider him far safer and saner than Clinton wrt foreign policy with most of the world (I suspect he could be worse wrt N Korea, than Clinton; also, no better wrt Africa, than Clinton).
I have never been impressed with the Trumpian “take the oil” position that I learned of during the campaign, and have described it as “goofy” and “sure sounding like a war crime”. That this particular stupidity (or hawkish stupidity, if you prefer) is nothing new, and extended to Libya, is disappointing.
Still, on balance, compared to the endless hemming in and provocation of nuclear super-power Russia (not to mention smearing of Putin), by the neocon class of which Hillary is an obvious example of, the author’s claim that Trump is more of a hawk than her still sounds absurd. Even if the argument has some merits.
Foreign affairs editor of Chronicles Magazine, srdja Trifkovic rated Trump’s foreign policy speech of April a B+. From https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/america-first-controversy/ :
“Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech last Wednesday deserves at least a solid B+ and you can read my take on it in the June issue of Chronicles. It offered an eloquent argument for offensive realism, based on the fact that the international system—composed of sovereign nation-states pursuing their interests—is still essentially competitive and Hobbesian. Trump is the only candidate who understands this cardinal fact, and who unambiguously states America is not and should not be an exception to that timeless principle.”
A key guy who has Trump’s ear (and for whom there was speculation would be VP) was former DIA head Mike Flynn. See “Trump’s favorite general” @ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253 From that article:
“Since leaving government, Flynn has angered U.S. officials over his friendly ties to Russia, with which he has publicly advocated better relations and military cooperation in the Middle East — a departure from the official Pentagon line. He even recently sat at the head table at a dinner in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised.”
This same article also says,
“Much as Trump likes to keep things in the family, Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, serves as a chief adviser.”
The idea that Trump wouldn’t consult with the likes of Flynn – who might be his Secretary of Defense – also seems goofy. Of course he will.
The Obama Administration, of which Hillary was an integral part, deliberately allowed ISIS to flourish, in it’s early stages. Trump’s incompetence as a political candidate is amply demonstrated by the fact that, even given 3 national debate audiences, he FAILED to pin the US non-interdiction of the mega ISIS oil trade, run through Turkey, on the Obama administration (thus, to one degree or another, also on Clinton). See “Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq border – General Staff” for photos that Trump should have (pardon the expression) trumpeted during all 3 national debates. Had he done so, in stead of being politically inept and inarticulate, he would have cemented in the public’s mind just HOW evil the foreign policy of both Obama and Clinton were. (Of course, he should have also mentioned the wikileaks tick tock memos, crediting uber SoS failure Hilary Clinton with steps on the road to the destruction of Libya).
Hillary has not just spouted militaristic, imperialistic hokum. She was also in the decision loop, as war crimes against Libya, in particular, were being decided on, then perpetrated. She has a history that is far more evidential of catastrophic militarism than goofy statements about “taking the oil”.
Posted by: metamars | Oct 27 2016 1:10 utc | 95
|
