Russia are quite simply no longer the existential and expansionist threat to western democracy that they were. Short of some minor territorial disputes

Partly agree but you can’t take one issue out of the whole foreign policy spectrum. If as you say Russia isn’t a threat then people can afford to be tough on them.
The minor outstanding issues – The invasion of a soverign state (Ukrane)
Arming rebels with the weapons that shot down MH17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Then working to cover it up
Syria
Agression around it’s borders
Overall and massive control of the gas supply to western europe
Press opression and the elimination of ploitical opponents

If you want to overlook all of than then be my guest. Russia aside Trump is a significant threat to the middle east, and at best a serious unknown quantity who has failed to show any kind of restraint, diplomacy or forethought. These are not qualities that go well on the world stage or in times where cool heads and calm actions are required.

Trump is a significant threat to the Middle East

Can you really say that with a straight face after Obama and Clintons involvement in Iraq (arguably drawing down too early and without securing a stable government, resulting in the rise of IS) Syria, Libya, Egypt etc

These are not qualities that go well on the world stage or in times where cool heads and calm actions are required.

Again, were back to the same old rhetoric from the Reagan era, that was supposed to drive us into confrontation with Russia and nuclear war. We’re still here.

(arguably pulling out to early and without securing a stable government, resulting in the rise of IS)

OK that old one

Was Obama responsible for the timing of the withdrawal?

It was President George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

“The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq — a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge,” he said in a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki at the time.

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn’t done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

“This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail,” Sowell said, “and, so, he didn’t even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over.”

The State Department’s lawyers said troops couldn’t stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.

Sowell saw State’s decision as a deliberately insurmountable obstacle.

“It was a barrier that was very high,” he said, “and there was no way it was going to be jumped over.”

But, does Obama bear responsibility for the timing of the troop withdrawal? On balance, no.

He was following through on an agreement made by Bush and abiding by the will of the Iraqi and American people.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

Did the withdrawal of troops lead to the rise of ISIS?

Back then, in 2011, there was no ISIS. The group didn’t exist under that name yet. There was just their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been at the forefront of the terrible insurgency in Iraq. But many thought it was licked.

“All of the intelligence that we had gathered, all of the results of the surge, all of the detainees we had in our detention system, all of the information we had coming to us from people on the ground, from the tribes indicated that al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated,” said Ret. Col. Peter Mansoor, who served in Iraq.

One of those tribal leaders, Sheikh Hamid Taees, told me: “In May of 2006, I worked closely with the American side to rid Anbar of terrorism and al Qaeda, and actually we killed a large number of al Qaeda fighters.”

But by the time of that comment, early in 2014, al Qaeda was beginning to get a grip on Sunni areas again, including that province of Anbar.

Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.

The Short Answer:

1. No, Obama shouldn’t shoulder the full burden for the timing of the withdrawal of troops;

2. Yes, a significant American troop presence would have helped slow the growth of ISIS

But with the significant caveat that there were many other factors that enabled ISIS to become strong — and they weren’t all predictable in 2011.
So in summary if he could have got past GWB’s timetable, convinved the Iraqi’s to be “occupied” and seen the future or found a way to make the Iraqi government train it’s troops and sort out the corruption and divides then maybe it could have been averted.
Your one liner just like trumps near exact same comment fails to even basically investigate or examine the facts or details of what was going on (Such as blaming Obama for sticking to stuff that was virtually set in stone to defeat a threat that didn’t exist at the time)

It’s not been perfect but tearing up the Iran peace deal would be a huge step backwards, open agression and short fuses will not help.

Syria, Lybia and Egypt are not simple porblems, has Trump actually managed to say what he would do differently? Is it an improvemnt or just more one liners like different you bad bad woman just different?

I admire that you can so staunchly hold your absolute hatred of Hillary Clinton and stick to the minutest details while ignoring so many facts.

Did you get your T-Shirt before they were withdrawn?

You seem to be pretty much agreeing with me that he could have done more, butin a half hearted manner, hidden somewhere between death by cut and paste.

Do you fancy tackling Obama/Clintons massive successes in Egypt, Libya and Syria next?

Regardless, to plaster Trump as a threat to the Middle Eastern security after the decades of complete cluster **** of US middle eastern policy requires the type labyrinthine twisting and turning a blind eye to ignore Clinton’s involvement that you could probably get a job as an accountant for her charitable foundation

I’m certainly not a supporter or the USA’s adventures in the Middle East but the options were

a) do nothing
b) charge in like a bad game of Risk
c) Play the game behind the scenes, secret stuff etc

The Obama administration picked up the mess from the Bush era. They couldn’t do nothing and conversely the public support was not there for full scale intervention, so the played the only game they can.

Trump I fear, is a real life Leroy Jenkins. Everyone else will be hanging back trying to come up with a plan, and he’ll come in late to the meeting, scream some rhetoric then go charging in with no heed to common sense.

Ninfan I am certainly not agreeing with you there is plenty to read. In summary though. (death by cut and paste? Well there was a lot of info that seems to go unread repeatadly by people making the same claims I know some people here struggle to click links and get bored easily but reading some of it may provide you with some context as to the events rather than just a headline)
To stay he would have had to convince the Iraqi Parliament to approve the request – they certainly didn’t want to do that.
The majority of the US was opposed to prolonged involvment.
ISIS etc didn’t exist and they were finishing off Al Quieda so the threat did not exist.
Sunsequent actions in the region post pull out lead to the rise of ISIS – the actions of the US may have been part of this but only a small part.

In what way is Trump not a threat – calling for the US navy to shoot at Iranian boats? Removing the Iran deal? His inablity to think before speaking?

These decades of US Cock ups were a large amount of those under a couple of fella’s called George?

Is there any sucess in Syria/Egypt/Libya? Some of the most taxing and testing times in world politics for a while, any nation come out looking great from them? How do you reckon Trump would do differently? (as he seems to be short of any real policy in the area openly disagrees with Pence on the issues and seems to argue devoid of any facts)

This is surely the biggest gap for Trump

His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.

And another thing.

The £350 million for the NHS bullshit brexit lie was reneged on just hours after the results were confirmed.

What if Trump wins, and the lies about the Mexican wall have to be reneged on. It’s an easy out for him as he’ll just say Mexico refuses to pay, and shift the blame, but no doubt there are many, many idiots out there who actually expect him to build a wall.

Watch “Cartel Land” on Netflix to get a feel for the type of person that will fully expect that promise to be fulfilled!

These decades of US Cock ups were a large amount of those under a couple of fella’s called George?

Jesus, Lefties and short memories – US meddling in Iran goes back far longer than that – right from the CIA (and MI6) involvement the ’53 coup through to JImmy carters failed hostage rescue and Reagans Iran-Contra deal, and that’s before we discuss the Iran-Iraq war.

Bloody pathetic trying to pin the complete mess that is the Middle East on Bush 1 or 2 – it just shows the difficulty that lefties have learning from history, because they are so busy airbrushing out their own part in it.

This is surely the biggest gap for Trump
His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.

Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she’s left behind her.

This is surely the biggest gap for Trump
His lack of foreign policy knowledge, understanding, tact, diplomacy etc is glaring.

Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she’s left behind her.[/quote]

Somewhere between

and the good old magician, distract, divert and then play the trick. At no point can you answer a criticism about Trump without using the words Clinton. Go on give it a go.

Like the Man said, Clintons got thirty years of experience, but look at the mess she’s left behind her.

Yes. Entirely Clinton’s fault. Everyone else involved has been exemplary apart from her. 🙄

Currently in Florida wondering how weird its gonna be here tomorrow night!!! 🙂

As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton

At no point can you answer a criticism about Trump without using the words Clinton.

Because that’s the choice you fool, its a two party system
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM[/video]
The biggest, huuugest overwhelmingly important reason to vote for Trump is that the alternative is Hillary
“more of the same” Clinton. Theres a bloody good reason that the entirety of the existing system, the banks, the media, the companies, the international corporations, the vested interests, all support Hillary and are terrified of trump winning… and it isn’t because they have the people’s best interests at heart. Drain the swamp.

As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton

mikewsmith – Member
As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton

POSTED 18 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST SHARE
Classic!

……. write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton

1. It would be a boom to the wall building industry
2. It would bring about an increase in grass roots protest movements
3. The first lady would add a little style to the role
4. He is not Hilary

Dammit, its difficult.

Its hardly classic, he’s just trying to create a false construct because he knows that Hillary is the embodiment of neo-liberal corporatism, which ordinarily he would rail against… but can’t because, well, because Donald.

The choice is Trump or Clinton, not Trump versus Obama (change? What changed?) or Trump versus Sanders. Even the republicans, most of whom hate trump because he’s not right wing enough (spent years as a democrat and was golfing buddies with Bill, remember?) can see that.
.

So what you’re saying is there isn’t a single good reason that Trump should be president. Well I’m sold.

Obama’s observation that he can’t be trusted with a Twitter account sums the situation up perfectly.

The most powerful person in the world, doesn’t have the self control to speak his mind, without causing serious problems.

WW3 would be horrific enough but the knowledge that it was started in 140 characters or less would be the ultimate indictment of humanity.

Hillary is the embodiment of neo-liberal corporatism,

Indeed, as is Trump. How can a man that gets the nomination of the Republican party be anything other than neo liberal establishment? Only an idiot would be taken in by his man of the people act.

I think the story where Trump turns up at a children’s charity event, sits on the stage next to donors then leaves afterwards sums him up, he had never given money to the charity, he wasn’t invited and in his world this was standard behaviour.

Guess the link between Trump supporters, Brexit voters and pro gun ownership supporters… 😀

5-30-8 have have it moving to 72% to 28% for Hillary

I don’t actually think it will make much difference who wins. For a start they’ll have a slender congressional majority and if it’s Trump and he really does want to try and follow through on some of his more radical ideas he’ll get no where.

He might do enough damage to screw up some domestic US policies but his hands will be too tied for him to do much internationally apart from cause embarrassment to the US.

Right-wing red-neck support will quickly get disillusioned and he’ll lose congress by a massive amount in two year’s time and will be even more of a lame duck than Obama has been in his last term.

Regardless of whether Trump would be a lame-duck or not, his presidency would be an absolute disaster for international diplomacy, at a time when, arguably, it is more important than ever.

There are no positives of a Trump Presidency.

As a challenge Ninfan/Jamby etc write down the 4 reasons you think Trump should be president without using the words Hillary or Clinton

The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.
The world will forget about Brexit.

Trump

Anti-establishment figure, whats gone on to date “isn’t working” his supporters want to try somethig very different
Focus on domestic business winding back offshoring, increase tax take from business sheltering profits offshore
Endung deeply unpopular Obama-care
Have NATO members pay their way and stop hiding behind the US

Obama has been a disaster in Iraq, the withdrawl has done more damage than the invasion (which was a mostake as coalition & public was never ready for the long term / withdrawal). Read Emma Sky’s excellent book Iraq: The Unravelling. Domestically not mich better, the first black President leaves with black human rights worse than ever. So much hope and promise wasted.

One more practical perspective that I heard from the US in choosing between two bad candidates

Vote Hilary – Congress shuts how down and you get paralysis
Vote Trump – Congress stays open and you get “some” progress

What do you want in a world if the lesser of two evils – progress or paralysis?

(Not my views BTW – just repeating an observation)

Well if we are talking about evils I would say paralysis of said evil is probably better than allowing it progress.

As for predicting the rise of ISIS I predicted it on here. During the attack on libya by UK and US. I said it would lead to chaos and militant “islamic” groups becoming strong and launching attacks on Western and middle eastern targets. It was obvious and inevitable

Jambalaya, analysis of trumps tax plans say that the rich will pay less tax, normal families will pay more and there will be a 6.2 trillion deficit over the next decade. 44% of his cuts would go to the richest 1%, not sure how this is good for anyone except the already wealthy.

He just doesn’t want to be beaten by a woman, I think that is a huge part of his issues.

edenvalleyboy – Member
Guess the link between Trump supporters, Brexit voters and pro gun ownership supporters…
POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

What an ignorant stupid dumbed down little boy you are.

I can’t be bothered to look up facts on the internet and selectively quote them, so can everyone just please get very angry about this posting of mine.

Whatever you believe, this is in direct contradiction to it, you can trust me on that.

Thanks.

#MakeSingletrackGreatAgain

#shakesfistatoldnpastit

What if Trump wins, and the lies about the Mexican wall have to be reneged on. It’s an easy out for him as he’ll just say Mexico refuses to pay, and shift the blame, but no doubt there are many, many idiots out there who actually expect him to build a wall.

Watch “Cartel Land” on Netflix to get a feel for the type of person that will fully expect that promise to be fulfilled!

I watched that last week. Its absolutely insane! The levels of violence are completely unhinged. Well up there with ISIS for being both unbelievably brutal and so arbitrarily applied. So you’ve the psychotic drug cartels on one side, and a bunch of tooled up red-neck vigilantes on the other.

Very easy to see why the general populace are getting the **** out of Dodge in their millions, for a better life in the US, where you’re less likely to be beheaded, or gunned down in the street

Difficult to see how building a wall will help. When people are so desperate to get over/under/round/through it

How about spending all that money on trying to address the actual root problem? Naaaah….. lets just offer ridiculously populist, racist claptrap as a simple (and totally unworkable) solution to a very complex problem.

Not for one minute did trump want to win,he knew full well that people who insult the latinos don’t win (or at least his many advisors did).And that’s aswell as all the others he’s alienated.He’s just a bored rich narcissist who wanted the only ego trip left that gets his tiny cock hard,he needs to see himself on T.v screens everywhere he turns.

Endung deeply unpopular Obama-care

Unpopular with who? It’s like the Brexit vote, almost a 50-50 deal amongst those who express a preference. A third of people feeling unfavourable about the Affordable Care Act. The irony is people are generally more favourable when it’s referred to as the ACA rather than Obamacare. Odd eh, almost like it’s less to do with policy, more to do with a name.

Have NATO members pay their way and stop hiding behind the US

They do pay their way or do you think that Luxembourg should pay the same as the US? From the Washington Post:

The U.S. share is calculated on the basis of gross national income — the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country — and adjusted regularly. Currently that would be about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth.

“The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole,” NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding.
……
NATO concedes this imbalance has been an issue since the start of the alliance: “The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defense.”

In the Times today it talks about how Trump sits in his campaign headquarters compiling lists of people he is going to get back if he wins… 😯

Unpopular with who? It’s like the Brexit vote, almost a 50-50 deal amongst those who express a preference. A third of people feeling unfavourable about the Affordable Care Act. The irony is people are generally more favourable when it’s referred to as the ACA rather than Obamacare. Odd eh, almost like it’s less to do with policy, more to do with a name.

Plus, it’s only unpopoular with some Americans because it’s a “change”: Fundamentally, the American ethos is about being self-sufficient, with “small” government. However, the ACA/Obamacare is something that had to happen, and has to continue, for the sake of many millions of Americans.

Yes, it needs reform, but it’s a start. If Trump got in, he would abolish it completely, which would be a massive step backwards.