Bodington
Virgin
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Posts
- 216
Let’s talk about foreign policy. After all we are in the process of electing the next President of the United States and ostensibly the leader of the free world. So foreign policy is by definition a very important component of the job.
At this point in time, one of the greatest current crisis in the world is the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. So what is Kamala Harris’ position regarding this war? Well she has said this and I quote: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that’s wrong.”
Does that statement give you confidence that she has a clue on how to deal with this international crisis? Maybe you don’t believe she articulated such an inanity? Here’s a link to Snopes the fast checking platform favored by the Democratic Party:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...y called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong."
The question is what is the desired winning outcome for the United States and Europe for this conflict? To my way of thinking wars end in either of two ways. Either one side is totally defeated and surrenders; WWII is an example. Or a ceasefire via diplomatic negotiations ends the hostilities; the Korean War is such an example.
So first of all, can Ukraine defeat Russia? The short answer is no. Napoleon could not do it. Hitler could not do it. And those two had comparably more formidable military assets in fighting Russia than Ukraine currently has notwithstanding that the Biden-Harris administration has sent exorbitant amount of military aid to Ukraine, has applied sanctions and has gotten some of our European allies to do the same. The only real way Ukraine can defeat Russia is if the US military forces and NATO join forces and come to provide meaningful military boots on the ground assistance to aid in the conflict. Needless to say, the United States nor any ally in Europe has the appetite for that. And even should we in the west actually contemplate such a disastrous option, Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. Putin has declared publicly that he would not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons should he detect that Russia was losing in the conflict. I believe he means it and such result would be obviously catastrophic for the planet.
I presume that the Biden-Harris administration policy is the hope that by continuing to prop up Ukraine’s war efforts, Russia will eventually tire of the war and then leave Ukraine voluntarily alone. That may or may not work depending on Russian zeal. But I think it’s more likely that Russia would eventually succeed and annex all of Ukraine. By the way it is obvious that military industrial complex in the United States are profiting from this war. And I suggest the Democratic Party has become more war hawkish than the Republican Party. No Democratic congress member seems to oppose continuing to send military aid to Ukraine whereas a few Republican Party members are questioning the wisdom of our policy to date.
I would also like to point out that the one thing Trump did during his Presidency which was universally, unequivocally lauded and applauded by the Trump hating MSM and the Democratic Party occurred when he ordered the bombing strike against Syria in retaliation to Syria’s poison gas attack. Its noteworthy to mention that 200 Russian military personnel were killed as a result of that action but Russian protest was muted. In any case Russia did not invade Ukraine during Trump’s presidency.
I trust you would agree that a negotiated ceasefire between the these two combatants is the only way we can win. So, how would you gauge Harris’ ability to be an effective negotiator for the United States? Well, we do have a hint aside from the idiotic assessment referred to above. Harris as VP did attend the Munich Security Conference on Feb 19/22 and articulated dire consequences would be in store for Russia should it invade Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 22/22.
No doubt you’re all familiar with Teddy Roosevelt’s simplistic phrase to describe effective foreign policy: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” It is axiomatic that for that phrase to work your adversary must believe you have a big stick but more importantly are willing to wield that big stick if necessary. Obviously, Putin was unafraid of the United States big stick despite Harris’ threat of dire consequences.
You’re no doubt aware that recently Trump had a meeting and held a press conference with Volodymyr Zelensky the Ukrainian President. Trump asserted that if elected he would quickly negotiate a fair deal between the two combatants and end the civilian carnage. I have confidence that Trump would be successful. It is a well known maxim that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And Trump’s foreign policy successes in the past have been spectacular.
Some examples: (a) He demanded that all NATO member countries abide by the agreement to spend 2% of their GNP on their military. When Trump took office there were only five NATO countries fulfilling that obligation. Today there are 23 countries out of 31 members meeting that guideline. Germany in fact is matching equally the US contribution. It is obvious that if all NATO members did adhere to the guideline there would an effective immediate military deterrence available to discourage Russia to try to regain former Soviet Union satellites like the Baltic States and Moldavia not to mention exert direct influence on affiliated states such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and even parts of Germany among others.
(b) Trump was instrumental in the execution of the Abraham Accords which formerly normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab states. At this point in time Israel’s only true and most serious adversary in the Middle East is Iran and their terrorist proxies but more about that later.
(c) When Trump took office, in the practice of providing traditional letter to the incoming new President, Obama warned Trump that the biggest foreign policy headache was North Korea. In response to this nettlesome problem Trump arranged a meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un in the city state of Singapore. A strategic choice since Singapore and North Korea were in the same economic position at the time North Korea was divided from South Korea at the end of WWII. Singapore has since become a super wealthy state while North Korea by all accounts is a poverty disaster. The idea was that this dichotomy might make an impression on the North Korean leader.
But still despite their poverty, North Korea is in possession of nuclear weapons which is potentially dangerous. With the encouragement of China, North Korea had conducted a plethora of nuclear testing with the end result that their nuclear capability was enhanced. An attack certainly on Japan, an important US ally, would be devastating and an attack on the United States could become possible. So in this summit meeting Trump applied the Teddy Roosevelt’s approach to foreign policy. The soft talk probably made little impression on Kim Jong Un but the big stick obviously did. I suggest that Kim got the message that unlike past US Presidents, Trump would not put up with North Korea’s continued shenanigans in trying to become a serious nuclear power. Ergo the rest of the Trump’s Presidency no longer saw any bellicose activity by North Korea. Sad to say since Biden became President, North Korea has become frisky again by resuming occasional nuclear weapon testing.
In contrast to these foreign policy successes of Trump, the most significant foreign event in the Biden-Harris administration has been the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen US soldiers lost their lives in the ill planned evacuation. Lots of overly expensive military equipment was left behind which Taliban gleefully displayed on parade as being now in their possession. It is an example of one of the most egregious disgraceful black eye the United States has ever suffered on the world stage.
You say Trump is a terrible person, but can you convince me that Harris is competent? Remember Harris has publicly affirmed that she was in on the decision of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and approved of it. I prefer the terrible person to the incompetent person to lead our nation.
At this point in time, one of the greatest current crisis in the world is the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. So what is Kamala Harris’ position regarding this war? Well she has said this and I quote: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that’s wrong.”
Does that statement give you confidence that she has a clue on how to deal with this international crisis? Maybe you don’t believe she articulated such an inanity? Here’s a link to Snopes the fast checking platform favored by the Democratic Party:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...y called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong."
The question is what is the desired winning outcome for the United States and Europe for this conflict? To my way of thinking wars end in either of two ways. Either one side is totally defeated and surrenders; WWII is an example. Or a ceasefire via diplomatic negotiations ends the hostilities; the Korean War is such an example.
So first of all, can Ukraine defeat Russia? The short answer is no. Napoleon could not do it. Hitler could not do it. And those two had comparably more formidable military assets in fighting Russia than Ukraine currently has notwithstanding that the Biden-Harris administration has sent exorbitant amount of military aid to Ukraine, has applied sanctions and has gotten some of our European allies to do the same. The only real way Ukraine can defeat Russia is if the US military forces and NATO join forces and come to provide meaningful military boots on the ground assistance to aid in the conflict. Needless to say, the United States nor any ally in Europe has the appetite for that. And even should we in the west actually contemplate such a disastrous option, Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. Putin has declared publicly that he would not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons should he detect that Russia was losing in the conflict. I believe he means it and such result would be obviously catastrophic for the planet.
I presume that the Biden-Harris administration policy is the hope that by continuing to prop up Ukraine’s war efforts, Russia will eventually tire of the war and then leave Ukraine voluntarily alone. That may or may not work depending on Russian zeal. But I think it’s more likely that Russia would eventually succeed and annex all of Ukraine. By the way it is obvious that military industrial complex in the United States are profiting from this war. And I suggest the Democratic Party has become more war hawkish than the Republican Party. No Democratic congress member seems to oppose continuing to send military aid to Ukraine whereas a few Republican Party members are questioning the wisdom of our policy to date.
I would also like to point out that the one thing Trump did during his Presidency which was universally, unequivocally lauded and applauded by the Trump hating MSM and the Democratic Party occurred when he ordered the bombing strike against Syria in retaliation to Syria’s poison gas attack. Its noteworthy to mention that 200 Russian military personnel were killed as a result of that action but Russian protest was muted. In any case Russia did not invade Ukraine during Trump’s presidency.
I trust you would agree that a negotiated ceasefire between the these two combatants is the only way we can win. So, how would you gauge Harris’ ability to be an effective negotiator for the United States? Well, we do have a hint aside from the idiotic assessment referred to above. Harris as VP did attend the Munich Security Conference on Feb 19/22 and articulated dire consequences would be in store for Russia should it invade Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 22/22.
No doubt you’re all familiar with Teddy Roosevelt’s simplistic phrase to describe effective foreign policy: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” It is axiomatic that for that phrase to work your adversary must believe you have a big stick but more importantly are willing to wield that big stick if necessary. Obviously, Putin was unafraid of the United States big stick despite Harris’ threat of dire consequences.
You’re no doubt aware that recently Trump had a meeting and held a press conference with Volodymyr Zelensky the Ukrainian President. Trump asserted that if elected he would quickly negotiate a fair deal between the two combatants and end the civilian carnage. I have confidence that Trump would be successful. It is a well known maxim that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And Trump’s foreign policy successes in the past have been spectacular.
Some examples: (a) He demanded that all NATO member countries abide by the agreement to spend 2% of their GNP on their military. When Trump took office there were only five NATO countries fulfilling that obligation. Today there are 23 countries out of 31 members meeting that guideline. Germany in fact is matching equally the US contribution. It is obvious that if all NATO members did adhere to the guideline there would an effective immediate military deterrence available to discourage Russia to try to regain former Soviet Union satellites like the Baltic States and Moldavia not to mention exert direct influence on affiliated states such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and even parts of Germany among others.
(b) Trump was instrumental in the execution of the Abraham Accords which formerly normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab states. At this point in time Israel’s only true and most serious adversary in the Middle East is Iran and their terrorist proxies but more about that later.
(c) When Trump took office, in the practice of providing traditional letter to the incoming new President, Obama warned Trump that the biggest foreign policy headache was North Korea. In response to this nettlesome problem Trump arranged a meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un in the city state of Singapore. A strategic choice since Singapore and North Korea were in the same economic position at the time North Korea was divided from South Korea at the end of WWII. Singapore has since become a super wealthy state while North Korea by all accounts is a poverty disaster. The idea was that this dichotomy might make an impression on the North Korean leader.
But still despite their poverty, North Korea is in possession of nuclear weapons which is potentially dangerous. With the encouragement of China, North Korea had conducted a plethora of nuclear testing with the end result that their nuclear capability was enhanced. An attack certainly on Japan, an important US ally, would be devastating and an attack on the United States could become possible. So in this summit meeting Trump applied the Teddy Roosevelt’s approach to foreign policy. The soft talk probably made little impression on Kim Jong Un but the big stick obviously did. I suggest that Kim got the message that unlike past US Presidents, Trump would not put up with North Korea’s continued shenanigans in trying to become a serious nuclear power. Ergo the rest of the Trump’s Presidency no longer saw any bellicose activity by North Korea. Sad to say since Biden became President, North Korea has become frisky again by resuming occasional nuclear weapon testing.
In contrast to these foreign policy successes of Trump, the most significant foreign event in the Biden-Harris administration has been the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen US soldiers lost their lives in the ill planned evacuation. Lots of overly expensive military equipment was left behind which Taliban gleefully displayed on parade as being now in their possession. It is an example of one of the most egregious disgraceful black eye the United States has ever suffered on the world stage.
You say Trump is a terrible person, but can you convince me that Harris is competent? Remember Harris has publicly affirmed that she was in on the decision of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and approved of it. I prefer the terrible person to the incompetent person to lead our nation.
