I am not surprised Donald Trump didn't give a formal policy speech today. It would provide too much information to his opponents in the debate. Why be helpful to the opposition?
See, most of America already knows the foreign policy of all the other candidates, it is called war.
Ben Carson is a little different than anyone else, he focuses on Russia and Israel, not necessarily in that order.
Why even debate it? Most if not all candidates have identical positions in foreign policy.
Tell me this isn't standard for every Republican candidate:
See, most of America already knows the foreign policy of all the other candidates, it is called war.
Ben Carson is a little different than anyone else, he focuses on Russia and Israel, not necessarily in that order.
Why even debate it? Most if not all candidates have identical positions in foreign policy.
Tell me this isn't standard for every Republican candidate:
- Cancel any nuclear deal Obama makes with Iran.
- Putin is a bully; expand US troops in countries near Russia.
- Peace deal with Iran threatens America & menaces Israel.
- US should shape events and build alliances of free people.
- Pressure Cuba to help Cuban prisoners.
- Strengthen the Cuban embargo instead of lifting it.
- The USA is a leader among equals in community of nations. (Ya, got to love that one. Lead among equals...??? equals ??? Equals need to be lead? Equals don't need to be lead, they need to agree and so does the USA. It should have a better record on AGREEMENT. Agreement would have prevented the war into Iraq. Maybe no one noticed but the USA's larger allies weren't in Iraq except for the UK. Tony Blair was too scared of Bush to leave him alone.)
- Words matter: presidents should mean it when they say it. (That is related to the lack of attack to lead to war in Syria.)
- Nourish our existing alliances: that means NATO & Israel.(I don't know what nourish means exactly. Nourish? What the heck does nourish mean about foreign relations? US AID? No, I don't think that is it. Strange word for foreign relations. Bribes maybe. Now that I would believe.)
- Passivity hasn't worked on Russia and Ukraine. (Actually there is some movement toward cooperation lately.)
- 2010: Ineptitude will bring down Chavez (like) regime in Venezuela. (Ineptitude? That's a policy? Wait for ineptitude to take it's toll? Really? That wont' work. The current opposition leader is in prison. Venezuela is not a threat to the USA, however, it currently has significant human rights issues. That is what should be addressed. The people need relief from the human rights abuses. Ineptitude. Amazing. Let me just state this. When a country like the USA simply waits for ? ineptitude ? to resolve problems it enforces a dictatorship. The USA when ignoring human rights abuses to allow a country to fall apart under ineptitude, it causes the current leader to dive into CONTROL and not resolve of the problems. When a leader has to control problems, there is always human rights abuses. The worse thing the USA can do is not engage a country's leadership struggling with control.) You know what is really interesting? The USA is always at the ready to go to war in the Middle East. But, when it comes to impoverished countries such as Venezuela the USA finds no reason to change a thing especially engagement in a near shore war. Think about it. Near shore wars are scary, aren't they? Imagine for one minute doing to Venezuela what the USA did with Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to the USA. Venezuela has oil. The Late Hugo Chavez even took pity on Americans for fuel oil in the winter. It is easy to be powerful when the war is half way around the planet from the legal limits of USA borders.
- Neo-isolationism and American passivity both have dangers.
- Supports economic cooperation between US and China.
- Defend anti-Castro terrorist as patriot in exile.
- Support Israel in its battle against terrorism.
- Role in the world: military strength and moral clarity.
