The Trump Doctrine

[ColonelAngus]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

Assad used chemical weapons..he reacted by enforcing Obama's red line.

How is that bad? I don't recall outrage at Obama drawing the red line. That supposes everyone was fine with him enforcing it. I guess they were full of shit.

Not our war. We don't react when Assad uses conventional weapons.

I don't even know where to begin.

Educate yourself and rejoin the conversation.

Here are some layups for you. Just click and read and become informed.

Chemical Weapons – UNODA

Brief Description of Chemical Weapons, Chemical Weapon as defined by the CWC, CW Agent Group, Persistency Rate of Action

Chemical Weapons


The modern use of chemical weapons began with World War I, when both sides to the conflict used poisonous gas to inflict agonizing suffering and to cause significant battlefield casualties. Such weapons basically consisted of well known commercial chemicals put into standard munitions such as grenades and artillery shells. Chlorine, phosgene (a choking agent) and mustard gas (which inflicts painful burns on the skin) were among the chemicals used. The results were indiscriminate and often devastating. Nearly 100,000 deaths resulted. Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused more than one million casualties globally.

As a result of public outrage, the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, was signed in 1925. While a welcome step, the Protocol had a number of significant shortcomings, including the fact that it did not prohibit the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons. Also problematic was the fact that many States that ratified the Protocol reserved the right to use prohibited weapons against States that were not party to the Protocol or as retaliation in kind if chemical weapons were used against them. Poison gasses were used during World War II in Nazi concentration camps and in Asia, althogh chemical weapons were not used on European battlefields.

The Cold War period saw significant development, manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons. By the 1970s and 80s, an estimated 25 States were developing chemical weapons capabilities. But since the end of World War II, chemical weapons have reportedly been used in only a few cases, notably by Iraq in the 1980s against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If Obama did NOT intend to enforce his "RED LINE", what was the point of it?

It couldn't have possibly been bullshit optics and not reality? Snowflakes hate that. Snowflakes like RESULTS...not SEMANTICS! Right, snowflakes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right snowflakes have trouble with semantics, do they not?

 

[Slade3200]

If Obama did NOT intend to enforce his "RED LINE", what was the point of it?

It couldn't have possibly been bullshit optics and not reality? Snowflakes hate that. Snowflakes like RESULTS...not SEMANTICS! Right, snowflakes?

What are you talking about? Try again but write something coherent. In the mean time here is a link in case you'd like to educate yourself.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons - Wikipedia

 

[postman]

If Obama did NOT intend to enforce his "RED LINE", what was the point of it?

If Trump did NOT intend to repeal and replace Obamacare, what was the point of it?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

/---- mean what you say????? Like in the red lines he drew? Like keep your doctor and plan??? You mean like that?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?

/---- that's exactly what Obozo did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?

/---- that's exactly what Obozo did.

Nope, that is what you are doing. Stay on track with the OP, please.

 

[postman]

/---- mean what you say????? Like in the red lines he drew? Like keep your doctor and plan??? You mean like that?

Trump said he would repeal Obamacare on day one. Check your calendar. He's a dollar short and not even in the same zipcode.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If Obama did NOT intend to enforce his "RED LINE", what was the point of it?

If Trump did NOT intend to repeal and replace Obamacare, what was the point of it?

It's been 3 months.

What point are you making?

Did Obama NOT draw a "red line" that he did not enforce?

 

[Slade3200]

If Obama did NOT intend to enforce his "RED LINE", what was the point of it?

If Trump did NOT intend to repeal and replace Obamacare, what was the point of it?

It's been 3 months.

What point are you making?

Did Obama NOT draw a "red line" that he did not enforce?

Obama drew a red line, he then drew up an attack plan to enforce it, congress shut it down.

Stop lying

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

Whatever approach Trump uses, soundly proactive with regard to public policy making is not what it is.

 

[Zorro!]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

The Trump Doctrine is simply the view that America (like other nations) should put its interests first. Not long ago, this would have been seen as a truism. Nowadays, it’s a doctrine — one that many reject as nationalistic.

The opposing doctrine is “globalization”, formerly known as “imperialism”, others call it “internationalism,” different words for the same policy.

Internationalism demands the ceding of large amounts of national sovereignty to foreigners. Our democracy depends on minimizing that, and that is the virtue of the Trump Doctrine.

The Trump Doctrine