That’s why I prefer Hillary. She is a consistent, reliable war pig and no threat to radical Islamic terrorism.

Also – I guess you missed the money quote in which Trump threatens the fifth column inside the CIA.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/speech-cia-trump-offers-build-them-room-without-columns-%E2%80%98do-you-understand-that%E2%80%99

Throughout the presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions have been anything but consistent. One day we heard that NATO was obsolete and the US needs to pursue better relations with Russia. But the next time he spoke, these sensible positions were abandoned or an opposite position was taken. Trump’s inconsistent rhetoric left us wondering exactly what kind of foreign policy he would pursue if elected.

Why don’t you say what was that opposite position?

“The President’s inaugural speech was no different. On the one hand it was very encouraging when he said that under his Administration the US would “seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world,” and that he understands the “right of all nations to put their own interests first.” He sounded even better when he said that under Trump the US would “not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.” That truly would be a first step toward peace and prosperity.

However in the very next line he promised a worldwide war against not a country, but an ideology, when he said he would, “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.” This inconsistent and dangerous hawkishess will not defeat “radical Islamic terrorism,” but rather it will increase it. Terrorism is not a place, it is a tactic in reaction to invasion and occupation by outsiders

1) So a promise for peace among countries is inconsistent with a promise of eradication of something that is “not a place”?

2) Ideology = terrorism = tactic in reaction ?

as Professor Robert Pape explained in his important book, Dying to Win.

Other learned professors argue radically different views. Hence, referring to just one expert view can’t clinch the matter.

I think this illustrates Ron’s point: Trump is inconsistent. You choose to believe him when he threatens the CIA but not when he praises them. Which position is more believable? Remember when he promised to put Hillary in jail? What happened to that promise?

How is a war on radical Islamic terrorism different from a war on terror more generally? In both cases there is no defined target and no defined goal; it’s just a ticket to endless war.

Because Pape and his students assembled and analyzed a database of all known suicide terror campaigns from 1980 to 2003. All 18 shared two elements: (1) a foreign occupation (2) by a democracy. Criterion 2) ensures there exists useful public opinion to sway.

I continue to respect Dr. Paul and lament that he could not become our president. However, I am not as troubled as he is by the inconsistencies of Trump’s positions. Trump is a negotiator, and negotiators do not voice fixed positions. As long as the desired outcome of a deal is held firm (internally), positions can vary wildly. Those may not be the tactics of a politician or a statesman, but they certainly are those of a businessman.

So, I am trying not to get my hopes raised too high by the things he says that excite me or let my hopes be dashed by the things he says about our “special” relationship with Israel. I will, however, be watching, perched at the edge of my seat, the actions that unfold in the months ahead and the results to our nation.

I believe that Trump has no fixed plans or strategies, but he does have an intent. It will be interesting to see how concrete plans form around those intangible intents.

He didn’t say “war”. He said ““unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth”. That does not require war, except in the metaphorical ‘war on drugs’ sense.

I am not suggesting that Trump is doing this. But there is some merit in talking out of both sides of your mouth.
It may be unsettling for a listener whom is used to believing that he has the right to a clear message for his own sense of direction. And that you have a right to ask another person to reduce your anxiety by being clear. Sort of an intellectual’s comfort animal.

Most politicians come from a legal background. Where there is a need on the one hand to present an argument cogent to a certain perhaps artificial logic. And at the same time having to use this to please the minds of a certain person or persons.
Trump comes from an entirely different background. Where there one’s words are closely watched by a hostile other. And communication is one weapon used to keep the enemy off balance. Its all out of the “Art of War”

I’m going to look into Pape. I am also reminded that foreign occupation by a democracy was absent in the case of Brigate Rosse (unless one counts some US base in Italy as proof of occupation, a view which produces analytical issues of its own). … There is a problem with talking about terrorism in that the relevant terms are so debatable. If there has ever been a single state engineered terrorist attack perpetrated by agents aware of what they’re doing, that, too, would be enough to say that some terrorism is different from Pape’s theory. In any case, thanks for the interesting reply.

It seems to me that Ron Paul is also trying to strike a balance between optimism and pessimism. Trump has certainly said some welcome things from a non-interventionist perspective and has angered a lot of interventionists, but we can’t allow that to obscure many of the aggressive interventionist positions he’s also voiced. We just don’t really know what will happen.

If it’s going to be like the war on the drugs, I can’t say I’m too hopeful for the outcome, either.

“Remember when he promised to put Hillary in jail? What happened to that promise?”

To my knowledge there was no such promise – this was only a lying-media-echo-chamber “promise”. During the campaign his strong attacks on “crooked Hillary” were followed by chants of “lock her up” from the crowds. Trump invariably reacted to such chants by shaking his head negatively and saying something to the effect that _instead_ she needed to be defeated on November 8. This is something that people who repeat hearsay about Trump’s reputed “promise” may not be aware of. Then finally, at the town-hall debate in October, surely the low mark in the history of presidential debates, which really did turn out to be “three against one,” and while visibly heated, Trump said he didn’t ever want to say this but said that if elected he would instruct his AG to “look into” the allegations surrounding Hillary. So that was not a promise to put Hillary in jail either. Then when Clinton was in the midst of warning about the danger “if someone with Donald’s temperament” (or words to that effect) were in office, Trump interrupted with the brief retort “You’d be in jail.” This got an immediate loud cheer from a large segment of the audience, but no one serious would regard that as an actual campaign promise.

So we have many denials during the campaign on Trump’s part that he was promising to put Clinton in jail, and one heated statement that he would “look into” Hillary’s situation.

What has happened since? It is clear that the Trump transition and new administration recognize that both President Trump and his AG must not themselves be involved in any future decision by the Justice Department to investigate or prosecute Clinton, because of conflicts of interest that would present.

I supported and defended RP when he was a candidate. I now support and defend Trump. RP could have been helpful in the defeat of Hillary but he chose instead to be consistently critical of Trump. I respect Ron Paul. But I would prefer that he support President Trump or at least resign from the Trump resistance movement led by the Neocons and the SJW’s.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Ron has a hard-earned reputation for principle and not subordinating his philosophy to the goal of winning an election or of campaigning for someone else. I don’t see how Ron could keep that reputation while staying silent on those issues where Trump deviated from libertarian or non-interventionist principles. Note that Ron has been willing to defend Trump against the demonization of him as a Russian agent and has offered cautious support of his non-interventionist positions. But the fact is that Trump has also espoused interventionist policies at various times.

Those may not be the tactics of a politician or a statesman, but they certainly are those of a businessman. …. I believe that Trump has no fixed plans or strategies, but he does have an intent. It will be interesting to see how concrete plans form around those intangible intents.

1. Yes.

2. I’ve come across many arguments that a country should not be run like a business
(http://www.bing.com/search?q=can+country+be+run+like+business )
If DJT continues with his business-like approach, it’s possible that he’ll prove them wrong … which makes his presidency all the more interesting!

His belligerence to Iran really bothers me, hopefully just a ploy for Jewish support.

There’s an old saying: Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds (no offense intended, Dr. Paul). I thought Trump’s visit to the CIA on his first full day in office was potentially brilliant. First, he went to see “the enemy” on their own turf, rather than summoning their leaders to the Oval Office. He loses nothing by showing that he respects them. There are undoubtedly some decent, honest people working in the CIA; I suspect the problems of political interference and massaged assessments emanate from the upper echelons. Second, if he fact intends to clean house, it doesn’t hurt to have the rank and file, if not on his side, at least somewhat favorably disposed to him.

We’ll see what happens. Trump may sometimes operate by indirection–head fakes–rather than giving his enemies a clear and consistent picture of his intentions and methods.

Agree. Ron Paul could have been a more effective candidate if he had been both non-interventionist and pro-military.

Trump just wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Trump’s messages about the CIA seem aimed at the top. When Panetta and others are dragged onto CNN they keep trying to say that he was aiming at the whole organization. Those people at the top seemed far more likely to have manipulated or bungled, while the field ops guys were doing their jobs. How much of that top deflection was to resist a divide and conquer or decapitation strike?

RP actually did very well among the military. If by “pro-military” you mean more belligerent and interventionist, I’m not sure that would have translated into better success among those would be ordered into harm’s way.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/

That actually makes sense. The top brass are political appointees.

@jtgw

No disagreement from me about Dr. Paul trying to be balanced – he has always abhorred demagoguery, and he is too wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I also agree that in expecting perfection from Trump we may damage the many good actions that come our way.

This used to be my argument against all those who would not support Dr. Paul because they had some reason to disagree with some of his economic policies, while completely ignoring that his foreign policy would end wars and would have saved trillions of dollars in the intervening years. The same people who were anti-war, and wanted Israel out of our government, decided not to vote for him.

Go figure.

yep, you can’t wage a war against a ghost you cannot see, it’s impossible, the only thing that will stop islamic terror aimed at the west is for the west to disengage militarily in the middle east, this will cause support to dry up for the islamists, “drain the swamp” of support, if you will.

post 9/11 idiotic US policy has helped legitimise crazies like bin laden in the eyes of many muslims, it underscored everything he had spouted, all Trump has to do is stop doing what they want.

there may be some residual things Trump needs to do to ensure isis don’t regain a foothold in Syria, but after that he should pass the baton to Russia and Syria, let them deal with it and get out, no more interventions, period.

You are autistic

Wow, devastating comeback. I’m crushed.

post 9/11 idiotic US policy has helped legitimise crazies like bin laden

Bin Laden was crazy? What are your sources?