Author Topic: Trump on National Security  (Read 26566 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Trump on National Security
« on: October 15, 2016, 01:31:17 PM »
Set aside all the other stuff about Trump, one of the big reasons people support Trump is on national security. He regularly shifts back to ISIS, even when questions put to him are about domestic policy.

So, looking only at that facet of his policy, I see a number of things that make me doubt he would have done better.

At a rally, he made this statement:

Quote
"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water,"

Based on this, I have to conclude that he would have easily started the war in Iraq himself. Iraq regularly fired upon our aircraft. I don't think he would have used a limited response like striking radar installations based on various other statements like these:

Quote
“We’re fighting a very politically correct war... And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

Quote
Everybody believes in the Geneva Convention until they start losing and then it’s okay, let’s take out the bomb.

There is the support of generals to consider. He boasts of the 88 generals that have supported him. But Mitt Romney had 500 backing him. It doesn't feel like very overwhelming support. Meanwhile Clinton has very similar numbers backing her.

He has no military background whatsoever, and whenever he is pressed for details he falls back on this type of answer:

Quote
All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I’m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS.

Quote
ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly.

Quote
I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.

If he does have a secret plan, is it genocide?

We certainly know that Trump is not interested in diplomacy. That's not his style, and I can't recall him ever talking about building coalitions.

He has an unfathomable view on military spending and how much it can accomplish.

Quote
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.

He seems to favor pre-emptive strikes.

Quote
I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea.

So, when I look at the evidence, I'm simply not sure why so many of his supporters think that he would make America safer, or stabilize the greater community of nations.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2016, 01:59:56 PM »
Trumps core supporters are enthralled. Reason we are told is the tool of the intellectual elite.
 
Trump tells each audience what they want to hear and it does not mater when he contradicts himself, even in front of his followers, they stick to what the wanted to hear as what Trump "actually meant". Trump will make America Great again (a statement that doesn't mean anything) and safer via force.
 
Trumps enthralled followers will tell  you not to pay attention to the rhetoric, it doesn't matter what Trump says, but what he stands for. When asked what he stands for they repeat back the rhetoric your not supposed to pay attention to.

Anyone who still thinks whats happening is about politics or policies is deceiving themselves.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2016, 02:50:54 PM »
He's becoming so rabidly unhinged that he's already declared the election a fraud and said he would not concede if he loses.  He's a step away from advocating armed rebellion and many of his most avid followers are already there.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2016, 06:27:13 PM »
I find it difficult to cut through Trumps hyperbole and identify his position on national security. In one minute he says he would keep the US out of conflicts and then in the next minute talks about shooting boats out of the water

If the issue of national security is a concern for a voter I think they have to look at how Trump handles situations.
Trumps business negotiation, self promotion, campaign style is to be offensive. When someone says something you don't like hit them back harder and the next day play the victim. All offense no defense, no compromise. I can't see how his national security policies would be different?

Based on his statements and preference (history) favoring offence I understand his policy to be one of maintaining such a large military that no one would consider messing with Him/American and if they did hit them so hard that they never do it again.

One could/should debate if such a policy would make America safe and great again (what ever great again means”

On ISSIS although he hasn’t said it, there have been hints. I suspect his policy would be to give Russia and Syrian dictator a free hand. Arguably this could work in ending the problems in Syria. Likely at the cost of many lives and a loss of American influence in the region.

That may not be a concern if the plan is for the US to builds its walls and hunkers down behind them. Safe and sound

On one hand you have a kind of appeasement. Let Russia have a free hand to do as they will and then on the other bend China, Mexico, Iran… to his will though offensive force.

But then psychologically I don’t think Trump could handle the returning body bags. I don’t think he could face and be a comfort to the mothers of the fallen.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2016, 06:46:57 PM »
If I understand Trump has to main positions

Trump would hand control of the economy to Corporations by freeing them from tax and regulation.  Small government intervention
But increase protective services, police, FBI, CIA, Military, corrections…. Big government intervention.

That has always been my confusion with the GOP. They are the party of family values and small government. Yet historically Government has gotten bigger under GOP leadership as they try to enforce their family values on everyone. 

I don’t know, its to confusing.  I keep ending up in conversations were people talk about wanting the government out of his business (there wallet) while wanting government to enforce there values as they see them. The Corporations will take care of the roads, hospitals, charities, maybe even the police, firefighters…. The market Gods will keep them honest.  A Libertarian Dream of everyone living as the want as long as everyone wants the right way.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2016, 06:52:17 PM »
On ISSIS although he hasn’t said it, there have been hints. I suspect his policy would be to give Russia and Syrian dictator a free hand. Arguably this could work in ending the problems in Syria. Likely at the cost of many lives and a loss of American influence in the region.

A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to police his own borders. We need not say anything good about Assad to also assert that it's absurd to speak of his "free hand" as if he didn't have the right to defend his own country. As for Russia, this isn't the cold war. If Syria welcomes them as a friend it's no one's business to send troops in to break up that party. No country has the right to deny other nations having good relations with each other.

It is reasonable to suggest it could end the problem in Syria, although it's hard to say for sure, but less reasonable to suggest that "cost of many lives" and "loss of American influence" are some kind of argument against respecting another country's borders. Whose lives, anyow? ISIS fighters? America does not need to protect them. The human shields they hide behind? That is regrettable, but the only other option is to let them run freely and wreak havoc, if, in fact, they are a legitimate threat. It would be one thing if they were a passive resistance group and Assad was trying to maliciously wipe out. But according to MSM and Presidential rhetoric for years ISIS is a menace that needs to be wiped out. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that the prospect of collateral damage doesn't change that fact, even though it does put a human price on achieving that goal. Maybe the price is too high, but that is a different argument and not to do with whether going after ISIS is in principle the right thing to do.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2016, 10:29:11 PM »
Trump would hand control of the economy to Corporations by freeing them from tax and regulation.  Small government intervention

Government regulations almost invariably favor large corporations. Ditto for complicated tax codes. Large companies are the only ones able to payroll the small armies of accountants and lawyers needed to navigate those waters. They're also the only ones large enough to get a reasonable return on investment with that small army because of their economy of scale.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2016, 10:45:55 PM »
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2016, 12:49:20 AM »
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.

Let's assume for the moment that actually has occurred, of which I'm not convinced. But let's say you are 100% correct about that. Even that statement has no bearing on whether or not the ISIS forces should be attacked. Unless you are arguing that Russia is not only helping Assad to target ISIS and other terrorists, but is also murdering Syrian non-combattants just for the hell of it? I've never seen any evidence they are doing that. Don't forget the issue that was raised was Trump potentially letting Russia and Assad have their way with the terrorists unopposed and the collateral damage that could result, in addition to loss of American influence there. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about Assad's alleged crimes against his own people prior to all of this, then you've changed the subject and you have two simple alternatives: invade Syria with an army and remove Assad, or leave him alone to run his country how he sees fit (for better or worse). The former option is the one that's been used so far, with "army" being replaced with "proxy army", but it's much the same reality.

But what you did just above is mix metaphors, as it were, and to insinuate that preventing Assad from repelling terrorists is the same as preventing him from killing his own people. So far no one has done anything to prevent Assad from killing his own people that I know of, but they have done plenty to prevent him repelling terrorists. Russia coming into the picture changed that and they took back territory. The east and west Aleppo situation is much regrettable, but it sounds like the terrorist side is by far the worse of the two. Maybe that's small consolation, but the alternative is to make all of Syria the terrorist side. Pick your poison.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2016, 01:31:52 AM »
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

FTFY.

Yeah, if those citizens were living under ISIS it'd probably be nothing but ice cream and sunshine all around.

If the choice is murderous secular dictator, or murderous religious nutjobs, I'll take the former every time.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2016, 09:41:57 AM »
Fenring:
Quote
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to police his own borders.

JoshCrow:
Quote
A "free hand"...in Assad's own country? Yes, how crazy, to not deny a leader's ability to slaughter his own non-combatant citizens.

Increase in communications and global awareness has far outpaced our ability to know what sense to make of things in far-off countries.  We have no formal authority to interfere, but it's questionable that we have the moral authority to interfere, either.  I think before we can really answer that question we have to understand why we won't even resolve our own problems:

Obama:
Quote
Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They've got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.

Orwell:
Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2016, 11:01:44 AM »
Quote
Government regulations almost invariably favor large corporations. Ditto for complicated tax codes. Large companies are the only ones able to payroll the small armies of accountants and lawyers needed to navigate those waters. They're also the only ones large enough to get a reasonable return on investment with that small army because of their economy of scale.

Overstatement. First, many regulations do not apply to companies with less than 50 employees.  Secondly, I am not sure that child labor laws favor large corporations, nor occupational health and safety laws, etc.  I could go along with a statement that large corporations actively work to shift regulations to their own benefit. And while they collaborate at times with both political parties, there is a differential level of collaboration with Republicans to shift the laws in their favor (which is why Democrats are the ones who often lead the fight for things such as the Consumer Finance Protection Board against universal opposition from Republicans).

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2016, 11:30:39 AM »
This is almost too pathetically funny, but this apparently isn't the first time Trump has claimed that an election he's not winning must therefore be rigged. I read these tweets this morning by Trump about the 2012 Emmy's:

Quote
Lots of people agree that the Emmy's were a joke --got bad ratings-- no credibility!
...Emmy's telecast is way down & lowest telecast on record among young adults. Emmys have no credibilty. Should have nominated Apprentice again!
...The Emmys are all politics, that's why, despite nominations, the Apprentice never won -- even though it should have many times over.

There are tweets very similar in tone from 2013 and 2014.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2016, 12:25:15 PM »
Its a very disturbing and potentially dangerous personalty trait for someone with power

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2016, 02:38:28 PM »
Are y'all on a different internet from mine? Does yours not have the leaked email about Hillary forces talking about Obama forces engaging in voter fraud in the Colorado primary?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3563

"High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region Mike is likely to talk to WJC about this in the near future. Marlon and Brynne, can you respond to the org chart request and give them some points of contact. Marc can you reach out to them on the lawyer election protection issues. Thanks."

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2016, 03:03:22 PM »
So an adviser in a private email raising concerns about potential ineligable voters at a caucus is the same as the candidate repeatedly saying that the election will be rigged if he loses (when polls show that he is likely to lose).  It isn't even close to the same thing Cherry and it makes the way he has referenced 2nd amendment solutions all that more insidious.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2016, 03:05:18 PM »
To be fair the only evidence in that email is the Clinton belief that it MUST have been ineligible people swinging the caucus Obama's way. And I'll certainly believe that that might have been said, because a hell of a lot of people thought that Clinton was the crowned heir apparent in 08, just the same as they do now.

It doesn't make it true. It only shows that Clintonistas believed it. Do you make it a habit to believe what they say?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2016, 03:30:39 PM »
I will also note that a caucus is not run with the same rigor as an election

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2016, 03:34:53 PM »
It doesn't seem like the primaries in general are run with any rigor.

Crazy-ass-system.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2016, 08:54:01 PM »
It is a crazy ass system.

I'm also flabbergasted that the political specialists and advisers are so crappy at their jobs.
Perhaps everyone are so caught up in overthink and optics that they lost sight of what they are looking at.

"Yes, but if he knows I know he knows, he may do (X) instead of (Y). But what if he knows more than I think he does? He could be acting like he only knows that I know he knows, when in fact he knows that I know he knows I know he knows!"

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2016, 12:37:41 PM »
Trump has given a lot of indications that he thinks a show of strength is the most important consideration, more important than international law and more important than whether we are provoking an undesired response.

He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.  He gets away with a lot of bluster, and he think he sounds credible when he mentions his secret infallible plan because he surrounds himself with people who treat him like he's credible.  And he's got a loyal base who are either a) dumb enough not to recognize his lack of a plan, who equate wealth with competence in any arena, or b) so bothered by Clinton that they don't care how bad Trump is. 

So yeah, he is probably thinking of big bombs and waving away the civilian casualties.  Or he's thinking of throwing his legal team at it. 

BTW, I think he thinks he can get military strength for a lower price the same way he gets buildings built for a lower price: by agreeing to pay one price and then paying a lower price instead.  Business genius, there.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2016, 12:44:33 PM »
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2016, 12:46:24 PM »
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.
Blink Blink. Really, how?

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2016, 12:53:00 PM »
He also has no plan with regard to ISIS.  Literally no plan.

"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

I think not invading in 2003 would have left everything in a preferable state to now, but I don't know if inaction toward ISIS would have been justifiable.  But I think I accept more of the mainstream wisdom about what is happening with ISIS than you do, so it's hard to compare our views.

But either way, Trump's no plan is still worse, since he still has a goal which I think he would try to carry out: wiping them out.  It's possible generals would be able to talk sense into him, but he's shown no willingness to take and follow advice from his current lieutenants, so it's not a safe bet.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2016, 01:01:08 PM »
Quote
"No plan" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.
Blink Blink. Really, how?

In context of "the fight against ISIS" supplying weapons to terrorists (even so-called moderate ones) that end up in the hands if ISIS is far worse than doing nothing and letting Assad route them. The fact is that it was distinctly not the primary U.S. policy in that area to fight against ISIS, but rather to fight against Assad while speaking negatively about ISIS. In context of "the fight against Assad" one could argue that this was partially successful. In context of "the fight against ISIS", completely counter-productive.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2016, 01:25:17 PM »
Normally not one to use the FTFY label but...

Quote
"A plan of inaction" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

FTFY

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2016, 01:54:30 PM »
If Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, there isn't an ISIS.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2016, 02:37:15 PM »
Quote
"A plan of inaction" would be far better than the plans that have been executed so far.

FTFY

Heh, well yes, that's what I meant to imply. I phrased it that way just to play on the "no plan" quote from the previous post.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2016, 03:30:15 PM »
If Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, there isn't an ISIS.
Sadly, that's probably true, but it's impossible to extrapolate from 2003 until today what might have happened. fwiw, I opposed any action in Syria because of the high uncertainty. We didn't know who to arm or what their real objectives were.   Not a good context for a committed policy. Sometimes *censored* happens whatever we try to do.   Libya is another case in point.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2016, 04:13:32 PM »
Trump also appears to have an "arm everyone" strategy, as expressed with respect to Taiwan, Japan, Korea. So, I surmise he would have given weapons and training to the Taliban precursors in Afghanistan, Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2016, 04:19:00 PM »
Sell, sure.  Give?  Not so sure.  :P

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2016, 04:28:59 PM »
I wonder if things would be different for the Tibetan people right now if they would have had the bomb before China invaded, conquered, and for the last few decades colonized them.

Also things would certainly be different for Ukraine if they hadn't been so foolish as to trust us when we told them that if they gave up their nukes we'd protect them from Russia. That was so gullible it's almost hard to feel sorry for the fools. I'm just kidding in a way that's not funny there. I do feel sorry for them. Obviously they shouldn't have trusted us with their national security. Tibet shouldn't have trusted the international community either. And neither should Japan or Taiwan. The proven track record justifies arming yourself to protect yourself because nobody else can be counted on to do it.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2016, 04:42:06 PM »
Also things would certainly be different for Ukraine if they hadn't been so foolish as to trust us when we told them that if they gave up their nukes we'd protect them from Russia. That was so gullible it's almost hard to feel sorry for the fools. I'm just kidding in a way that's not funny there. I do feel sorry for them. Obviously they shouldn't have trusted us with their national security. Tibet shouldn't have trusted the international community either. And neither should Japan or Taiwan. The proven track record justifies arming yourself to protect yourself because nobody else can be counted on to do it.
We (the West) never told Ukraine we'd protect them. Whining to the Security Council is about as far from "protection" as I can imagine. That's all they were guaranteed to get. If they had nukes, maybe they'd be a bunch of craters in Eastern Europe right now.

There were, like, half-a-dozen close calls in the Cold War. How many more are you willing to risk?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2016, 04:58:28 PM »
I trusted my doctor...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/07/ben-carson/carson-says-usprotection-promises-led-ukraine-give/

"Ukraine was a nuclear-armed state. They gave away their nuclear arms with the understanding that we would protect them."

— Ben Carson on Thursday, August 6th, 2015 in the first Republican debate

That was actually my understanding from many years ago though too.

I have to believe Ukraine thought they were getting some sort of protection too.

Ah, here it is, further on in the article. It looks like they just got lawyered and good too.

""State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature," Pifer wrote. "U.S. officials also continually used the term ‘assurances’ instead of ‘guarantees,’ as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies."

I guess the Russians had their lawyers read over the fine print and properly parse it all and came to the technically correct, and as it turns out just completely correct, interpretation that they could take Crimea and we wouldn't really do anything about it but squirm and squeal a little bit, which is indeed all we've done.

This actually makes my point even stronger though. Whatever assurances you might think you have, you don't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the last question, well yes absolutely I'm against nuclear weapon proliferation. As an American, why wouldn't I be? It doesn't make me any safer if more people have them. But I'm not willing to give ours up, ever. And if I were a citizen of another country at risk of being invaded or attacked, then the shoe would be on the other foot.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2016, 05:05:10 PM by cherrypoptart »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2016, 05:02:43 PM »
My only objection to what cherry puts forward as I think the defense of yourself should VERY heavily favor conventional weapons/forces.  I think we are ALMOST past nuclear weapons as being an issue.  I actually think that within say 2 decades we will see nations play chicken with the "nuclear deterrent" and I think the results will be an unwillingness to use nukes, even in defense against invasion.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2016, 05:03:24 PM »
Well, if Iraq had nuclear weapons we probably would not have invaded them. And now North Korea has the ability to defend themselves from a potential invasion. Nukes for everyone, what could go wrong?

The idea of the Dalai Lama nuking the Chinese is just about the strangest thought I've had on the subject of Tibet. He did, in fact, defend India's right to nuclear weapons, but he has never supported armed resistance against China.

As far as the Tibetans go, one has to wonder if the guerrilla training and arms given to the Tibetans didn't cause them more harm than good. The Lhasa uprising resulted in the death of over 80,000 people, and ultimately accomplished little.


NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2016, 05:06:39 PM »
Quote
I have to believe Ukraine thought they were getting some sort of protection too.
I have rather more faith in the Ukrainian's reading comprehension. A treaty that says complain to the Security Council where the Russians have a veto is very different from, say, an attack on one is an attack on all. There's a reason they weren't allowed to join NATO.

Everyone knew those assurances weren't worth the paper they were written on.

It actually makes you less safe if more people have nukes. A fact Trump seems to be ignorant of.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2016, 05:40:59 PM »
With respect to Ukraine, they never had functional nuclear weapons. Russia had control of the weapons on Ukrainian soil. All of the command codes were still in Russian hands. So they didn't exactly give up a nuclear deterrent, and had they tried to keep physical possession, it might well have sparked a military action by Russia in order to recover them.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2016, 01:07:53 AM »
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/24/iraqi-terror-suspects-latest-examples-flawed-refugee-vetting-system-say-critics.html

"Two Iraqi men who allegedly lied their way past U.S. immigration officials and continued their terrorist-related activities after being admitted as refugees are the latest evidence that a flawed screening process is putting Americans at risk, critics say.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, moved to the U.S. in 2012, only to return to the Middle East twice to fight for Al Nursra, was allegedly recorded by the FBI boasting about executing members of the Syrian Army and their Russian allies. Wiretaps, made while he moved from Arizona to Wisconsin and then California, captured him stating he wanted to return to Syria because he was "eager to see blood.”

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab was allegedly caught on tape boasting about killing for Al Qaeda. (Associated Press)

But when Al-Jayab sat for his interview with U.S. Customs and Immigration Services officials, he lied about his past – and his true intentions, say law enforcement officials. Al-Jayab is being held in Chicago for attempting to support a terrorist group, and also faces charges in California for lying to investigators about living in Syria.

Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq, lived in refugee camps in Iraq and Jordan before moving to Houston in 2009. The nephew of a legendary Al Qaeda bomb maker, he last week pleaded guilty to plotting and training to bomb and shoot up two Houston malls, including the prestigious Galleria. During a hearing on Monday, the 24-year-old pleaded guilty to attempting to assist the Islamic State group beginning two years ago."

Hillary is a dangerous person with a dangerous policy and it will surely get Americans killed unnecessarily.


AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2016, 06:25:36 AM »
If I understand what the story says, these men were caught. That suggests that they somehow got past the immigration process yet we still have the means to detect and deal with them. Since no screening process is perfect, that's encouraging. Also, one of them has been here since 2009 and committed no crimes,  also encouraging.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2016, 12:29:41 PM »
Quote
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

Define "grave danger." :)

No vetting system is perfect, and any suggestions to make it better are appreciated.  But Trump doesn't want to improve the vetting system; he wants to just shut it down, because of this "grave danger."

We're in more danger from the thousands of armed criminals, psychos, anti-government crazies, and people blinded by anger already in this country than from the few foreign terrorists that manage to sneak in.  If you are truly concerned with making this country safer for our citizens, let's get the number of gun deaths down to international levels first before closing our borders to refugees.

Trump is a sniveling, cowering coward who would sacrifice women and children to starvation, exposure or ISIS in order to make himself maybe 0.1 percent safer.  This is no "grave danger."  This is an appeal to emotion and prejudice not based on facts.  And people--men, women, and children--will suffer because of this irrational fear.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2016, 12:02:43 AM »
Quote
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

Trump is a sniveling, cowering coward who would sacrifice women and children to starvation, exposure or ISIS in order to make himself maybe 0.1 percent safer.  This is no "grave danger."  This is an appeal to emotion and prejudice not based on facts.  And people--men, women, and children--will suffer because of this irrational fear.

More like reducing the probability of an attack anywhere by 0.1%.  He has made himself maybe 0.00000001% safer, and I still think both of those of being generous with how much safer we are by rejecting all refugees.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #42 on: October 28, 2016, 01:47:38 AM »
Neither Trump nor I are concerned with making ourselves personally safer by keeping out ISIS terror cells who will infiltrate refugee populations if they are large enough just as they did in Europe. The terrorists in Brussels who blew up an airport and metro station didn't target anyone in government or some random guy posting stuff on the internet from his house in the suburbs. Neither Trump nor I are the ones put in danger so it's hardly brave of us to allow in refugees when we know some of them are likely to be ISIS operatives. They aren't after us. By the same token it's hardly cowardice to want to keep them out instead of bringing them within easy striking distance of their favorite prey so they can kill and maim our women and children. Bravery isn't being willing to sacrifice your own country's women and children to terrorism, to put them on the front lines, because that's what every train station, airplane, subway, and mall food court is to these people.

As for leaving them to die over there that's not necessary either. There are more options available than bringing them straight to America or leaving them in the countries that other Muslims are destroying by fighting amongst themselves as they've been doing for over a thousand years. In fact, by not bringing them to America we can help many times more of them reach a safe place as I've seen numbers indicating it takes up to $12,000 to bring them here but only $2000 to relocate them somewhere safe over there.

Not to mention don't we have enough refugees coming from Central and South America already that we are apparently responsible for taking in? How many Latinos fleeing desperate conditions in their own home countries are we sending to Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other Arab countries? And if we are taking in refugees from all over the world there are millions we could take in who will starve to death or die of easily treatable diseases around the world who pose absolutely no terror threat whatsoever.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2016, 02:22:27 AM »
Quote
y the same token it's hardly cowardice to want to keep them out instead of bringing them within easy striking distance of their favorite prey so they can kill and maim our women and children.

No, cowardice is when you look at every Muslim and see a terrorist.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2016, 09:30:15 AM »
That calculus is missing some terms. You also have to consider:

If all refugees are denied help from the US, how much more likely is it that someone might be recruited from within the citizen population? Or from within other populations? Those people will be "clean" on any background check because they are newly minted terrorists.

How many refugees might be likely to aid in anti-terror efforts by reporting on what they see?

How many people who can't enter as refugees would enter on other visas?


And that is just on the security impact.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #45 on: October 28, 2016, 12:05:20 PM »
The question you have to ask is do you want America to look more like Europe with the massive terrorist attacks they've experienced due to letting in too many refugees too fast. Seeing a terrorist in every Muslim isn't cowardice. It's just paranoia. But not admitting that some Muslims are terrorists is naivete or even just being dishonest. Insisting that letting American women and children get blown up and shot and stabbed to death on our streets and in our malls is worth it to save the lives of the refugees is a calculation each person can make for themselves. If there is a way to save the refugees without risking our own women and children that seems like the most obvious solution.

I also notice a certain arrogance and even hubris when it comes to Islam and Muslims. Liberals seem to think that if we just let them into America and expose them to our own values and civilization which are obviously superior to their own then they will just naturally and necessarily assimilate into our society like every other group has done. There is never any thought given to the possibility that Islam may actually be the superior force.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #46 on: October 28, 2016, 12:20:45 PM »
Reading your comment I don’t understand how anyone in Europe has not been killed yet!

As for massive attacks against its own people the US is doing pretty good already. No one seems care enough to do anything about that… maybe reason enough to ban all Americans from leaving the US.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2016, 01:35:52 PM »
But not admitting that some Muslims are terrorists is naivete or even just being dishonest. Insisting that letting American women and children get blown up and shot and stabbed to death on our streets and in our malls is worth it to save the lives of the refugees is a calculation each person can make for themselves. If there is a way to save the refugees without risking our own women and children that seems like the most obvious solution.

Kids get killed by drunk drivers too, but a return to Prohibition probably isn't the best plan. It sounds like you are putting zero value on taking in refugees, except to themselves. I've already listed some of the ignoble self-serving reasons why bringing in refugees is a good idea for propaganda and intelligence. Comparing our system of handling refugees to, say, Germany is not particularly useful. I can't think of anyone advocating the adoption of the Merkel plan.

Taken to the extreme, where does the fear bring us? WW2 style internment camps for resident Muslims in the US? After all, several terrorist acts have been carried out by citizens. Better safe than sorry, neh?

And if we can save thousands of Muslim refugees, but it means that there will be one or two attacks with loss of life, and we choose not to... doesn't that pretty much set itself up as a recruiting poster that America considers foreign lives to be worthless?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #48 on: October 28, 2016, 06:48:36 PM »
Can't we save thousands more Muslim refugees by supporting their relocation to other Muslim countries?

"... doesn't that pretty much set itself up as a recruiting poster that America considers foreign lives to be worthless?"

Not worthless, one word. But perhaps worth less, two words, than the lives of American women and children, yes.

Maybe we could have saved Somalia back when we invaded with the U.N. force but we decided that those millions of lives were worth less than the thousands of American troops we would lose in the effort. Their lives were apparently not even worth one Black Hawk Down.

That's Trump's whole point. Put America first. We can still help them but there is no reason to endanger our own civilians and subject them to completely predictable and preventable terrorist attacks in the process. We just help them over there.

It's not even a question of the lives of thirty thousand Syrian refugees being worth less than the lives of thirty American women and children. That would be a good question though.

Hillary's answer is that if it costs thirty Americans their lives to help thirty thousand Syrians come to America it's worth it. Trump's position is that it's not.

But that's not even the question because we could actually save the lives of more Syrians and other refugees by not bringing them to America because bringing them here is so much more expensive.

Make our next arms deal with Saudi Arabia conditioned on them accepting in some Muslim refugees. Many Muslim countries have huge populations of foreign guest workers, for instance from the Philippines, so it's not like they don't have jobs available. It's almost like they aren't accepting any because they prefer using this crisis, just like ISIS is, to spread Islam across the world. And when we fall for it that just incentivizes them to extend the crisis situation, escalate it, and keep making more of them if possible.

I'm glad the FBI caught the latest couple of Muslim terrorists who infiltrated in with the refugee population but there are two obvious problems with that. One is that they may not catch the next one because that's the "beauty" of the lone wolf attacks. These guys talked to an informant. The next guy might not. And the second problem is this is taking away FBI resources that could go to solving other crimes and tackling other problems. It's not like we don't have enough as it is.

And that brings us back to the issue of drunk drivers and heart disease and second hand smoking deaths, driver by shootings, random murders in gang initiations, domestic violence homicides, and falling down in your bathtub. We've got enough problems as it is without adding more. And it's not like the victims of terrorism were going to die some time soon anyway by some other means. Why send them to their graves when we don't have to?

This all seems very similar to what happened in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump on National Security
« Reply #49 on: October 28, 2016, 06:55:38 PM »
And the refugees along with the terrorists amongst them and the American lives lost are just one part of the issue. The second part is how it eventually changes America for the worse as we've seen in Europe and Britain where terrorism is the new normal. I don't think it's quite gotten to that point here yet and I'd rather it not.

If the loss of American lives in direct attacks by ISIS terror cells infiltrating the refugee populations is still worth it, is terrorism becoming the new normal in America, forever, also an acceptable price to pay?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9308/londons-muslim-mayor-terror-attacks-part-and-michael-qazvini#

"Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan is now echoing an excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal."