Trump or Biden, US foreign policy endangers the world

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/trump-or-biden-us-foreign-policy-endangers-the-world/

According to the article, in the 21st Century the US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, caused a global financial crisis, caused the collapse of Libya, pushed NATO eastward resulting in the Ukraine war, and reneged on the Taiwan Relations Act, and through the Abraham Accords indirectly caused the current Israel - Hamas war. The author missed a couple others like Georgia, Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, etc.

The argument is that the US creates instability and violence around the world in order to maintain global dominance, and that this policy is supported by both Trump and Biden.

 

Well I remember the liberals assuring us that if Trump was elected he was going to start world war 3.

We see who the warmonger is and it isn't Trump.

 

The Biden puppet administration has funneled billions to the Muslim fundamental regime in Iran which has funneled money to Hamas and other enemies of Israel. After Hamas attacked Israel, the Biden puppet masters send more money to Israel. That leaves us financing both sides.

 

I disagree. Nothing creates more stability among the democratic nations of the world than expanding NATO. And I'm not saying it's great. I wish we could do it with a non-military organization (U.N.), but right-wing parties all over the world (especially in the US) have managed to undermine that effort. NATO does destabilize non-democracies. Especially expansionist regimes. But... is that really such a bad thing?

I just can't think of any alternative. Can you?

 

My recollection is that after the dissolution of the USSR there was a lot of angst about what the future role of NATO would be. NATO was seen as essential to the continued dominance of the US and UK as senior and junior partners in running the world.

Largely due to bureaucratic and political inertia NATO was kept alive until 9/11 happened, the US could invoke Article 5, and NATO had a new lease on life in the War on Terror. That bridged the interim until a new conflict could be started with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia is not actually the really worthy opponent, and a lot of effort is being put into making China NATO's enemy.

I don't think that destabilizing non-democracies is a good idea. The various "color revolutions" led to very mixed results, with Libya and Syria on the very negative end. I believe that Russia could have been contained without NATO pushing forward into Ukraine. China hasn't had much appetite for expanding beyond its historic boundaries from a few hundred years ago. Trying to govern lesser peoples is not seen as worth the trouble.

I think a better outcome in the '90s would have been an arrangement of three major powers, North America, Europe, and China, with an array of secondary powers such as the UK, Japan, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. A three-party game is stable, since the two weaker parties can cooperate to offset the stronger party. The coalition shifts as the parties strength varies over time. A two-party game is unstable. And a sole superpower situation invites opposition by any aggrieved parties as well as passive aggressive behavior by the rest, which is what I believe has developed.

 

There was a lot of doubt as to the role of NATO in the world. There is less of it now.

I don't think it's a good idea either. And that's the change. We don't want NATO to destabilize anybody, like they might have done in the past. Some Republicans claim Ukraine was a fascist nation. That's none of our business, so long as THEY don't try to expand. However, we DO need to promote requirements when becoming and remaining a NATO member.

That's why NATO hasn't pushed forward into Ukraine.

We need to stop nations from expanding... PERIOD! And NATO, while not perfect, is our best bet to achieve that.

NATO had a different purpose in the 80s and 90s that it has the same as it has now. If it's CLEAR that it's purpose is to stop expansionism, it is useful. Of course, these objectives are vulnerable to incompetent NUTS like Trump coming to power. But it's our best bet.

 

It's not the US as a whole, the public for example have learned from
the endless series of pointless wars that starting wars is just a way
for the weapons makers ('defense industry' they are called) to get rich.

 

Not bad. You get a score of 100% balderdash on Foreign policy. In fact Biden dumped almost every Trump initiative. Including the Abraham Accords while making sure to empower Iran and there by it's proxies the houthi's, Hezzbollah and Hamas. Bidens energy policies in the US allowed Russia to reap a sufficient oil bonus to go to war with the Ukes. As long as there is a Hamas and an Iran flush with cash there will always be a Hamas Isreal War the only thing that will vary is the intensity. Israel is now seeking to end half of one side of that equation.

 

The possible roles of NATO were understood differently from mainland Europe,
Britain and the US, and people who don't understand why that is, possibly shouldn't
be conjecturing about the role of OTAN.

Even when members say much the same thing, it is in a different context; i.e.. they
don't mean the same thing.

 

True. That is why the Military Industrial Complex needs an "enemy" that the Main Stream Media can sell to the public as a threat to the United States. "Russia" and "China" at least have a credibility that the "War on Terror" was lacking. Although the public is still confused about China being an enemy as they roam the aisles of Walmart looking at the origin labels.

 

He didn't

One thing has nothing to do with the other

which makes this statement false

Complete fallacy. You constantly repeat this false statement and I will call you on it every time. In point of fact, it was Trump's crashing of the oil market that led to OPEC+ to give the US the finger. The "deal" that Trump made ended in 2023. The high gas prices that you constantly blame Biden for are a direct result of Trump policies, COVID and the Ukraine war. Period.

Iran is hardly "flush with cash".

 

It was clear in 2014 that a government had been installed with the intent of incorporating Ukraine into the EU and late into NATO.

NATO has pushed forward into Ukraine with every form of assistance short of membership and the stationing of NATO country troops officially in Ukraine. Most of the assistance to Ukraine is provided with NATO coordination.

The history since 1914 is not one of nations expanding their boundaries and politcal possessions. In 1914, most of the map he map of the world can be colored with shades for the British Empire, French Empire, Austro-Hungarians, Germans, Russians, Portuguese, Dutch, Ottomans, Japanese and Chinese. The exception is the Western Hemisphere where the independence of the United States and the disintegration of the Spanish Empire had led to nations that still exist largely unchanged.

Only 63 states became members of the League of Nations, which is most of the nations that existed then. There are now 193 members of the United Nations. China, India, the United States and Indonesia are the four remaining countries with unusually large geographic scope and diverse populations before you get down to more or less normal countries.

 

The U.N. is the worst organization to rely on. We've seen that in Gaza.

 

The MIC owns the Main Stream Media, enough of it to control it.

The group referred to as the Neocons are great war starters and
Congress is heavily bribed and run by bribes from the MIC.


Take a few examples, the War in Vietnam and the War in Afghanistan both lacked
purpose yet Congress voted 99% and 99% in favor of war in both instances.

Despite lack of evidence in both cases, but abundance of money.

 

In 1890, the Census Bureau announced the "closing of the frontier" - there was no apparent tracts of land without settlers.

In 1898, the House of Representatives voted 311 to 6 in favor of the Joint Resolution for Cuban independence. The Senate was more reserved with a 42 to 35 approval. We thus continued our expansion by grabbing Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines from Spain.

William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, the media barons of the day, had much to do with it.

 

dems have always been for Tariffs, Trump supports them too and is getting the republicans to as well

will either party crack down on outsourcing IT jobs to India, as this is a national security issue?

 

The Republican Party is the worst organization to rely on.

 

When the U.S. plays planetary police force it acts when there is instability or violence somewhere around the world. The federal government feels compelled to intervene. Whether it should act or not is a debatable issue. The motivation to be a planetary police force is a mystery to me. I think it is mystery to government as well. Given that I think China's approach to international relations is far superior to ours. Our enemy is kicking our behind in many ways.

The U.S. has no business invading anyone that hasn't committed an act of war against it. The only time I can think of that occurring since December of 1941 is the terrorist scourge. We are justified in punishing the countries that sent terrorists to terrorize us. Otherwise we should take a cue from the Chinese.

 

A complete nonsense assertion. The Abraham accords went away because Biden was busily trying to rebuild the idiotic one sided and now pointless Iran Nuclear Deal and also stopped enforcing the sanctions against same. So yes for Iran they are now quite flush with cash and are funding and equipping their proxies like never before. And that is also Bogus covid crashed the oil market with much of Europe and the rest of the world shut down. You can continue to pretend reality is other than it is but I will continue to explain to you what reality is like it or not.

 

Biden continued to push for normalization of relations between Israel and other Arab and Muslim countries. The Abraham Accords were specific normalization agreements between Israel and UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. The Biden administration discontinued the term because it wanted to extend normalization to non-Arab Muslim countries who are not descendants of Abraham. The normalization agreements continued, but they are now probably suspended due to the Israel-Hamas war. Nothing the Biden administration did affected them.

 

Except handing tons of weapons and weapons systems to Israel, maybe.

 

No Biden did not he started trying to go after a nuclear deal with Iran after pretty much being rebuffed by Saudi over his rather intemperate to put it mildly words after the death of a Saudi journalist while Trump was president.

 

The Saudis never agreed to normalize relations with Israel. There is no Abraham Accord between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and it is unlikely that the Saudis would have negotiated one. Instead, relations between the Saudis and Iran have improved in the last couple years. March 10, 2023 they announced the resumption of relations.

 

And Patently untrue.

Even with wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which U.S. is not directly involved and the beginnings of which the U.S. had no part in or control over, War is less common now than anytime in history.

 

It's a fact, he didn't. Example: He kept the China tariffs....so you're 0-1

To use your term..."a complete nonsense assertion". Why it is was explained in post 20 and 23. Your rebuttal to post 20 was groundless. 0-2

They are not flush with cash. 0-3
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-economy/

I didn't say covid crashed the oil market, Trump crashed the oil market with a deal he made that was in effect until 2023. 0-4

You can start anytime but the above examples didn't do it.