Trump creates biggest foreign policy &#$@-up possible with just word and no actions.

[Broken_Erika]

It's not as if anything changed under W. Why are you leaving those years out?

George W Bush was a puppet of Hillary, Obama and Mr.Banghazi! The Truth is in the deleted E-Mails!

 

[Berzerker]

It's not as if anything changed under W. Why are you leaving those years out?

because he was supposedly a conservative

 

[stinkubus]

W slashed taxes, fired US attorneys who refused to write bogus memos substantiating the GOP's claims of wide spread voter fraud across the country, and started a completely unnecessary war that lead to over one million civilian casualties. His conservative bona fides were never in doubt.

 

[Cutlass]

16 years of Clinton and Obama and you blame conservatives?

16 years of conservatives is 16 years of conservatives.

 

[stinkubus]

Yup. I'd like to know what specific policies were enacted by the Obama administration that makes them liberal. Executive orders regarding environmental regulations and overtime pay are about all I've got.

The entire ACA scheme was concocted by the Heritage Foundation. Back when a few Republicans actually cared about policy it was their answer to single payer, as soon as a Democrat proposes it it's the worst socialism ever. Obama was ready to negotiate on cuts to Social Security by the end of his second term, his administration massively expanded the surveillance state, jailed journalists who refused to divulge sources, the drone program is a literal war crime, and on and on and on...

The environment and civil rights are the only striking points of differentiation between the two major parties at this point in time, imo. If you think the current iteration of the Democratic party is somehow liberal in any meaningful sense of the word you either consume too much of their propaganda, are a virulent racist, or you work as a shill for the various industrial concerns who would very much like to save a buck by poisoning our air and water.

 

[Berzerker]

Wow, so now Clinton and Obama are conservatives? I dont even count Bush as a conservative, he's a big spending neo-con.

 

[stinkubus]

They are certainly more conservative than the Democrats of years gone by. The country has been lurching rightward since about 1980 or so. Most current Democratic policy positions (other than the environment and civil rights) would've been right at home in the pre-Tea Party GOP.

Also a hearty LOL @ you if you think anything can or will be done regarding federal spending. The lion's share goes to the military which neither party would dare to even suggest we cut, and entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Even with a unified government the GOP couldn't muster the political will to touch Medicaid spending via ACA repeal because it would've been suicide at the state level anywhere that accepted the expansion.

 

[Berzerker]

Where did I say something will be done about spending?

 

[stinkubus]

It's sort of implied by you denying Republican politicians aren't true conservatives because they are big spenders. Once you state that you would either have to concede that cutting spending is bad policy or you are heading for a no true scotsman fallacy.

 

[Berzerker]

How do Republican big spenders translate into me thinking they will do something about spending?

 

[Commodore]

Just read the US is claiming to have "negotiated" a $285 million cut in the UN's core budget. Anyone think this has anything to do with the US threat to pull funding for condemning it over moving the embassy to Jerusalem?

If so, is this an indication that Trump is now actively trying to destroy the UN by slowly chipping away at its funding, thus making it a completely ineffective and irrelevant organization?

And if that is the case, do you think the weakening and eventual "League of Nations-ing" of the UN is a good thing or a bad thing for global peace and stability?

 

[stinkubus]

I can't see how the current administration's rhetoric can do anything other than harm global peace and stability, but peace and stability is certainly not the goal for those currently in power. A lot of damage was done to America's credibility and standing in the world during the W administration and the Republicans are now doubling down under Trump. Even if a sane Democrat wins in 2020 why should the rest of the world care if there's a legitimate chance that our foreign policy does another complete 180 in 2024?

The US is currently punting away its standing as the global economic and cultural leader in the name of short term corporate greed. What do you think the point of dismantling our state department is? So corporations like Exxon can accelerate their pillaging of the third world's mineral wealth without any interference from pesky diplomats. Exxon, on its own, was working to undermine US foreign policy under Obama. Now they are literally in charge of our foreign policy.

 

[Commodore]

Okay, I was more asking if people think the UN is required for global peace and stability.

Basically, if Trump succeeds in destroying the UN, will it really change the current international political landscape all that much?

My kneejerk reaction says it would, but then when I think about it, nothing really stands out in my mind in terms of anything significant the UN has done that has truly made the world a better place to live. At the same time, they haven't done anything to make it worse either. So I guess in my mind, the UN is just this thing that kinda exists while serving no real purpose except to give yet another platform to politicians to talk about doing things and making it look like they've done things without really doing anything other than talk about doing things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So I guess in my mind, the UN is just this thing that kinda exists while serving no real purpose except to give yet another platform to politicians to talk about doing things and making it look like they've done things without really doing anything other than talk about doing things.

This was singularly convoluted, but frighteningly accurate.

 

[stinkubus]

From Wikipedia.

A study by the RAND Corporation in 2005 found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared efforts at nation-building by the UN to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as compared with four out of eight US cases at peace.[115] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides, and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism—mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict in that period.[116] Situations in which the UN has not only acted to keep the peace but also intervened include the Korean War (1950–53) and the authorization of intervention in Iraq after the Gulf War (1990–91).[117]

This also seems significant.

The World Health Organization (WHO), which focuses on international health issues and disease eradication, is another of the UN's largest agencies. In 1980, the agency announced that the eradication of smallpox had been completed. In subsequent decades, WHO largely eradicated polio, river blindness, and leprosy.[153] The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), begun in 1996, co-ordinates the organization's response to the AIDS epidemic.[154] The UN Population Fund, which also dedicates part of its resources to combating HIV, is the world's largest source of funding for reproductive health and family planning services.[155]

 

[Verbose]

Okay, I was more asking if people think the UN is required for global peace and stability.

If it lapses it's going to have to be reinvented, or we all have a much rockier ride ahead.

The alternative models are there to look at in history.

 

[Hanaboshi]

Okay, I was more asking if people think the UN is required for global peace and stability.

Basically, if Trump succeeds in destroying the UN, will it really change the current international political landscape all that much?

My kneejerk reaction says it would, but then when I think about it, nothing really stands out in my mind in terms of anything significant the UN has done that has truly made the world a better place to live. At the same time, they haven't done anything to make it worse either. So I guess in my mind, the UN is just this thing that kinda exists while serving no real purpose except to give yet another platform to politicians to talk about doing things and making it look like they've done things without really doing anything other than talk about doing things.

I believe the UN can work as long as it's HQ moved into the ISS, with no countries granted the veto rights, leaders start to stop trying to enrich their own country, Jerusalem becomes a neo-Vatican city governed by a self-regulated UN bodies consisted of Israel, Palestine and their allies, religions become a mundane matter and the world try to create a long term global project together such as food and medical technology research, deep space exploration, global intellectual debate and futurist-like discussions that spans for half a year streamed on youtube where people can comment and ask the representatives about their argument. Which is impossible right now because it will always be a platform of power struggle between rich nations and poor countries trying to choose sides.

I'm not saying that the UN shouldn't be exist because as we are currently, the UN is still on its infancy. The idea is great, but we are still not there yet because you know, humans suck. Maybe try to pay attention to the UN in the future in 2050, if it's still exist, it works, if not, it doesn't. Rome wasn't built in a day anyways.

 

[Verbose]

The UN system is as close as we've gotten to the epitome of a system of multilateral relations in international politics.

It's never been universally liked for that.

The novelty is that the US now has a president who actively dislikes multilateralism, and might like to replace it with a system if bilateral deals between the US and various smaller nations.

It's one of these self-fulfilling situations. If enough of the major powers of the world ditch multilateralism in favour of bilateralism, everyone who has a stake and enough bulk, wealth and power to claim things is going to end up doing so.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is off topic, connected only Verbose's comment here, but Trump promised to rip up all the multi-national treaties the US is in and replace them with bilateral treaties. But he hasn't in fact made any new bilateral treaties.

 

[stinkubus]

To my knowledge they haven't ripped up any ratified treaties. I'm still waiting for his base to turn on him after he declined to do anything with NAFTA, which was a major campaign promise.