Trump the Crusader in Chief Foreign Policy

Trump the Crusader in Chief biggest foreign challenge is

  • Russia with its nuclear weapons, energy power and its interference in US elections plus Syria, Iran

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • China with its economic challenges

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Iran

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Middle East

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Global Warming

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Venezuela

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mexico and Canada trade and immigrants

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Europe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Brexit

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
NiceV

NiceV

Well-Known Member
Trump Says Russia Should Be Readmitted to G7
 
  • Advertisement
  • proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Trump Says Russia Should Be Readmitted to G7
    Trump is dangling carrot in front of Putin's nose, but cost of readmission might be rather high.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Meaning The objections to Russia admission will not come from Trump but others
    Trump is smart and he like Putin
    What I expect to come from Trump are not objections, but conditions.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    That I agree or better yet, deal acceptable for both sides will be made or there'll be no deal.
    Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, welcoming Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, to the G7 dinnerShow caption
    Donald Trump
    G7: Trump’s demands for Russia’s readmission cause row in Biarritz
    US president argues Putin should be included in discussions on Iran, Syria and North Korea
    Italy and Japan support this
    France less but alll agree
    A deal with Ukraine without Crimea is enough
    Julian Borger in Biarritz
    Sun 25 Aug 2019 14.22 EDT
     
    mikeys71

    mikeys71

    Well-Known Member
    Idiot Trump walkout of global warming meeting. What a disgrace of a president.... 2020 can't come soon enough...
    1566834977931.png
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Idiot Trump walkout of global warming meeting. What a disgrace of a president.... 2020 can't come soon enough...
    I've been watching Trump running the country for 2.5 years now and I am yet to see him doing anything idiotic.

    BTW, "global warming" is so yesterday. Haven't you heard, it is "climate change" now.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    I've been watching Trump running the country for 2.5 years now and I am yet to see him doing anything idiotic.

    BTW, "global warming" is so yesterday. Haven't you heard, it is "climate change" now.
    What do you think

    August 27, 2019 - 10:30 AM EDT
    Trump's interest in Greenland is a wakeup call about Arctic influence

    Trump's interest in Greenland is a wakeup call about Arctic influence
    BY RYAN P. BURKE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 0
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    The next cold war with Russia may be a literal vice metaphorical one. So before we dismiss President Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland, we should consider that our great power rivals — China and Russia — aggressively seek Arctic influence while throngs of the U.S. defense establishment consider the Arctic a homeland defense priority region.

    Trump’s recent eye toward Greenland is the latest play from the pages of his National Security Strategy (NSS). His administration’s philosophy of principled realism promises to put America First and “respond to the growing political, economic and military competitions.” Given this, Trump’s interest in Greenland should come as no surprise.

    Though the 2017 NSS fails to mention Greenland as a strategic imperative, annexing the world’s largest island is consistent with the NSS in that it would serve as a base furthering homeland defense efforts; promote American prosperity via access to Greenland’s “enormous unexplored stores of natural resources”; preserve peace by “elbowing out geopolitical rivals”; and advance American influence geographically and militarily by extension. Acquiring Greenland, however unlikely, is a logical next step in the Trump administration’s continued efforts to put America first.

    With this context, what first was perceived as “absurd” rhetoric now is generating support among some beltway pundits who better understand the relative value of Greenland in this multifaceted geopolitical equation. Whereas the complex mechanics of and resistance to the U.S. purchasing Greenland are better left to others to contend, Trump’s interest in Greenland has major strategic implications that are long overdue.

    The U.S. considers China and Russia to be “revisionist powers” constituting real threats to U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic interests globally, and the Arctic is one of the primary regions of Chinese and Russian ambition. Climatic variations have objectively changed the Arctic landscape. Entire regions of the Arctic Circle once impassable now are accessible and exploitable. In 21st century-great power competition between the U.S. and these revisionist powers, the Arctic — and Greenland — will take center stage.

    China and Russia are in a race with the U.S. to tap into the estimated $35 trillion worth of untapped oil, natural gas and other precious minerals in the Arctic. In 2018, China released a white paper stating its intent to leverage melting ice pack and monetize a “Polar Silk Road” of new shipping routes. They also are building nuclear icebreakers and, at one time, wanted airports in Greenland. The Russians, not to be outdone, have military bases and “spy whales” in the Arctic.

    Meanwhile, the current extent of the U.S. Arctic orientation resides in a 19-page Arctic Strategy and the oft-mispronounced Thule (“Tool-ee”) Air Base in northwest Greenland. Trump wants more.

    The United States’ “fourth coast” necessitates its participation as one of seven Arctic Council nations such that the Arctic has warranted policy language from every U.S. president since Richard Nixon. Before this, the U.S. twice attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Despite the historical precedent and contemporary relevance, some claim that Trump doesn’t understand power and that Greenland is unnecessary in the race for Arctic influence. While ownership of Greenland may not be a necessary precondition for Arctic control, it would help. Though the U.S. doesn’t need to annex Greenland to permit military operations — Thule Air Base has been under U.S. control for over 70 years — territorial claims of the island nation would enable the U.S. to restrict Chinese and Russian basing efforts for sustained Arctic operations.

    Moreover, it would place the U.S. in a strategically advantageous position to contend with potential tensions in the Norwegian-owned Svalbard archipelago to the east. Despite the Svalbard Treaty restricting militarization of the islands, Svalbard remains a NATO vulnerability in the Arctic. A similar treaty with China and Russia preventing further militarization of Greenland is inconceivable. Greenland, like Svalbard, is a critical location for Arctic influence logically compelling U.S. interest.

    U.S. inaction in the Arctic will enable further territorial disputes and resource conflicts with great power competitors. Presence in and influence of the Arctic should be a U.S. strategic imperative for the 21st century. Since Greenland is one of the most strategically important pieces of real estate in the race for Arctic influence, it is — by extension — a strategic imperative for the U.S.

    The U.S. is an Arctic Nation and the Arctic now is a competitive region; it soon will be a contested domain. Trump’s interest in Greenland should serve as a wakeup call: the Arctic is a melting pot of rising tensions that soon will boil over, and countries lacking influence are sure to get burned.

    Ryan P. Burke, Ph.D., is an associate professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy and a former Marine Corps officer. The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the official position of the United States Air Force Academy, Department of the Air Force or Department of Defense.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    What do you think

    August 27, 2019 - 10:30 AM EDT
    Trump's interest in Greenland is a wakeup call about Arctic influence

    Trump's interest in Greenland is a wakeup call about Arctic influence
    BY RYAN P. BURKE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 0
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    The next cold war with Russia may be a literal vice metaphorical one. So before we dismiss President Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland, we should consider that our great power rivals — China and Russia — aggressively seek Arctic influence while throngs of the U.S. defense establishment consider the Arctic a homeland defense priority region.

    Trump’s recent eye toward Greenland is the latest play from the pages of his National Security Strategy (NSS). His administration’s philosophy of principled realism promises to put America First and “respond to the growing political, economic and military competitions.” Given this, Trump’s interest in Greenland should come as no surprise.

    Though the 2017 NSS fails to mention Greenland as a strategic imperative, annexing the world’s largest island is consistent with the NSS in that it would serve as a base furthering homeland defense efforts; promote American prosperity via access to Greenland’s “enormous unexplored stores of natural resources”; preserve peace by “elbowing out geopolitical rivals”; and advance American influence geographically and militarily by extension. Acquiring Greenland, however unlikely, is a logical next step in the Trump administration’s continued efforts to put America first.

    With this context, what first was perceived as “absurd” rhetoric now is generating support among some beltway pundits who better understand the relative value of Greenland in this multifaceted geopolitical equation. Whereas the complex mechanics of and resistance to the U.S. purchasing Greenland are better left to others to contend, Trump’s interest in Greenland has major strategic implications that are long overdue.

    The U.S. considers China and Russia to be “revisionist powers” constituting real threats to U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic interests globally, and the Arctic is one of the primary regions of Chinese and Russian ambition. Climatic variations have objectively changed the Arctic landscape. Entire regions of the Arctic Circle once impassable now are accessible and exploitable. In 21st century-great power competition between the U.S. and these revisionist powers, the Arctic — and Greenland — will take center stage.

    China and Russia are in a race with the U.S. to tap into the estimated $35 trillion worth of untapped oil, natural gas and other precious minerals in the Arctic. In 2018, China released a white paper stating its intent to leverage melting ice pack and monetize a “Polar Silk Road” of new shipping routes. They also are building nuclear icebreakers and, at one time, wanted airports in Greenland. The Russians, not to be outdone, have military bases and “spy whales” in the Arctic.

    Meanwhile, the current extent of the U.S. Arctic orientation resides in a 19-page Arctic Strategy and the oft-mispronounced Thule (“Tool-ee”) Air Base in northwest Greenland. Trump wants more.

    The United States’ “fourth coast” necessitates its participation as one of seven Arctic Council nations such that the Arctic has warranted policy language from every U.S. president since Richard Nixon. Before this, the U.S. twice attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Despite the historical precedent and contemporary relevance, some claim that Trump doesn’t understand power and that Greenland is unnecessary in the race for Arctic influence. While ownership of Greenland may not be a necessary precondition for Arctic control, it would help. Though the U.S. doesn’t need to annex Greenland to permit military operations — Thule Air Base has been under U.S. control for over 70 years — territorial claims of the island nation would enable the U.S. to restrict Chinese and Russian basing efforts for sustained Arctic operations.

    Moreover, it would place the U.S. in a strategically advantageous position to contend with potential tensions in the Norwegian-owned Svalbard archipelago to the east. Despite the Svalbard Treaty restricting militarization of the islands, Svalbard remains a NATO vulnerability in the Arctic. A similar treaty with China and Russia preventing further militarization of Greenland is inconceivable. Greenland, like Svalbard, is a critical location for Arctic influence logically compelling U.S. interest.

    U.S. inaction in the Arctic will enable further territorial disputes and resource conflicts with great power competitors. Presence in and influence of the Arctic should be a U.S. strategic imperative for the 21st century. Since Greenland is one of the most strategically important pieces of real estate in the race for Arctic influence, it is — by extension — a strategic imperative for the U.S.

    The U.S. is an Arctic Nation and the Arctic now is a competitive region; it soon will be a contested domain. Trump’s interest in Greenland should serve as a wakeup call: the Arctic is a melting pot of rising tensions that soon will boil over, and countries lacking influence are sure to get burned.

    Ryan P. Burke, Ph.D., is an associate professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy and a former Marine Corps officer. The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the official position of the United States Air Force Academy, Department of the Air Force or Department of Defense.
    I am for it.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Major achievement for the Crusader in Chief
    Ending the 15 years Afghanistan war
    An historical moment

    September 02, 2019 - 02:32 PM EDT
    US would withdraw 5,000 troops, close bases under draft Taliban peace deal: US envoy

    US would withdraw 5,000 troops, close bases under draft Taliban peace deal: US envoy
    BY JESSICA CAMPISI 215
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    The U.S. would reportedly withdraw nearly 5,000 troops from five bases in Afghanistan within five months under a draft peace deal with the Taliban.

    The deal, which took months of negotiations, still requires President Trump’s approval, Reuters reports. Afghan President Ashram Ghani has been briefed on the accord and will reportedly look it over in detail before weighing in.

    In addition to the troop withdrawal, if the deal is signed the Taliban will not allow militants to use Afghanistan to plan attacks on the United States or its allies, Reuters reports. The agreement also includes a provision for “intra-Afghan” talks to end the clash between the Taliban and Kabul's Western-backed government.

    Ghani has met with special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and plans to “study and assess” the specifics of the agreement, according to Reuters.

    A spokesman told reporters that "for us, a meaningful peace or a path to a meaningful peace is the end of violence and direct negotiation with the Taliban.”

    The United States has about 14,000 troops in America's longest war, spanning 18 years, on a mission of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban, as well as conducting counterterrorism missions against groups such as al Qaeda and ISIS.

    The talks also come amid continued violence, including an attack on a wedding last month in Kabul that killed 63 people. ISIS’s Afghanistan branch has claimed responsibility for the attack, sending a reminder that violence is likely to persist even if the Taliban agrees to stop.

    Finalization of a deal has also been obstructed by the Taliban’s refusal of inter-Afghan talks, which the United States has advocated for. The Taliban considers the Afghan government illegitimate.

    If the agreement goes into effect, the amount of troops in the country would be similar to when Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, the Associated Press reports.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    September 01, 2019 - 09:00 AM EDT
    Pence visit to Warsaw on solemn occasion is important to close ally

    Pence visit to Warsaw on solemn occasion is important to close ally
    BY CHRISTOPHER R. HILL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 21
    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    U.S. leaders often do their best to avoid visiting countries entering an election cycle. But just weeks before Polish parliamentary elections in October, only three months after hosting Polish President Andrzej Duda at the White House, and days after returning from the G-7 Summit in France, President Trump dispatched Vice President Mike Pence to represent him in Warsaw today to observe the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II. The president planned to attend himself, until forecasters predicted Hurricane Dorian could make landfall in Florida as a category 4 storm.

    It is appropriate for the vice president to visit this warm and close ally on the occasion of such an important anniversary. In September 1939, Nazi Germany and, two weeks later, Soviet Russia attacked and partitioned Poland, thereby starting World War II and leading to the Cold War and a half-century of the brutal division of Europe.

    Poland’s fate to be left on the wrong side of what was known as the Iron Curtain is sometimes laid at the doorstep of the United States and its Western allies, stemming from the conferences that took place during the latter period of the war, especially Yalta. But most Poles would agree in 2019 that their country has not had a better friend in recent decades than the United States.

    There is a certain irony about the closeness of Trump’s trips to the G-7 in France and Pence’s trip to Poland. At the G-7 meeting, Trump found himself somewhat the odd man out in trying to get Russia back in the club and returning it to the G-8. In Warsaw, Pence will celebrate the administration’s efforts that have included new sales of high-performance aircraft and deployments of U.S. troops for the purpose of keeping Russia out of Poland.

    Cooperating with Poland on security issues did not begin with the Trump administration. Every U.S. administration since the end of Soviet rule in 1989, from George H.W. Bush’s presidency to Barack Obama’s, has made a stronger Polish relationship a priority. Often, the Trump administration prides itself in doing things differently, but this is one area where the Trump administration can take a bow for continuing the efforts of its predecessors.

    Since joining the NATO alliance in 1999, Poland has been an active and substantial member, modernizing and westernizing its forces, including making major purchases of latest-generation U.S. F-16s, only four years after becoming a member. Poland also has contributed forces to NATO deployments including in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and in Iraq under U.S. command. Poland has been one of only eight members to meet fully its obligation to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on its military.

    As enthused as Poland has been to be in NATO, it has sought to have clearer signs that NATO is in it. Poles have been asking for U.S. troops to be stationed on its territory since Lech Walesa, the Solidarity trade union leader who became Poland’s president, first made the request when he came to Washington in November 1989, just months after Poland had thrown off the Soviet yoke and retaken its place among the free countries of Europe.

    Trump may have Polish history on his mind. Perhaps, too, he has Polish elections his mind, as certainly his hosts do. But more likely he has his own election — 14 months away — on his mind. There are about 10 million Polish-Americans in the U.S., and many live in the all-important-to-campaigns upper Midwest.

    But Polish-Americans, wherever they live in the United States, have tended not to support one party over the other in considering relations with Poland. Polish-Americans vote for different U.S. candidates in elections for different reasons, many of which have little to do with support for the old country. But to the extent that they keep an eye on Poland, they understood it is best for Poland that support for its future and its friendship not be a political issue in the United States, or a part of the U.S. political divide.

    Poland always warmly welcomes U.S. leaders, and Pence will be no exception. Poland’s road to democracy and a market economy has not always been easy — and it is not easy now. The vice president would do well to encourage this bilateral relationship and, perhaps if asked, offer the Poles advice about their situation. Above all, the Trump administration should make sure this special and enduring relationship continues into the future.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    USA doing negotiations with houthis terrorists
    Crusader in Chief revolutionary diplomacy
    س 05 أيلول 2019
    مسؤول أميركي يعلن عن محادثات مع المتمردين اليمنيين لحلّ النزاع






    https://www.oroom.org/forum/whatsapp%3A//send?text=https%3A//www.aljoumhouria.com/news/index/486431%20%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A4%D9%88%D9%84%20%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A%20%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%86%20%D8%B9%D9%86%20%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D9%85%D8%B9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86%20%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%91%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B9



    أعلن مساعد وزير الخارجية الأميركي للشرق الأدنى ديفيد شينكر خلال زيارة للسعودية الخميس أنّ واشنطن تجري محادثات مع المتمردين اليمنيين بهدف إيجاد حل "مقبول من الطرفين" للنزاع اليمني.
    وأوضح شينكر في تصريح للصحافيين في مدينة الخرج جنوب الرياض "تركيزنا منصب على إنهاء الحرب في اليمن ونحن نجري محادثات مع الحوثيين لمحاولة إيجاد حل للنزاع متفاوض عليه يكون مقبولاً من الطرفين".

    وأضاف متحدّثا في قاعدة عسكرية "نحن نعمل مع المبعوث الدولي مارتن غريفيث، ونقيم اتصالات مع شركائنا السعوديين".
    وهذه المرة الاولى التي يعلن فيها مسؤول في إدارة الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب عن محادثات مع المتمردين المقرّبين من إيران.
     
    NiceV

    NiceV

    Well-Known Member
    Democrats trying to derail historical achievement
    ber 05, 2019 - 02:08 PM EDT
    House panel calls for Afghanistan envoy to testify about deal with Taliban

    House panel calls for Afghanistan envoy to testify about deal with Taliban
    BY CRISTINA MARCOS 7
    TWEET SHARE MORE
    House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on Thursday called on President Trump's special envoy to Afghanistan to testify this month on the proposed peace plan with the Taliban.

    Engel asked Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation who has served as a top negotiator with the Taliban, to appear before his committee in September. It follows two previous requests earlier this year that Engel said didn't receive responses.


    "I am calling this hearing so that Congress and the American people will have the long-overdue opportunity to understand the contours of your negotiations with the Taliban and the potential risks and opportunities that may result," Engel wrote in a letter to Khalilzad.
    "After nearly two decades of war, we all want to see the fighting in Afghanistan come to an end. But we want to make sure we are negotiating a peace and not simply a withdrawal," Engel added.

    Engel's demand for Khalilzad's appearance comes after the special envoy said earlier this week that the U.S. and the Taliban have reached an agreement "in principle," pending Trump's approval in what is the ninth round of talks.


    “Yes, we have reached an agreement in principle,” Khalilzad told Afghanistan's TOLOnews. “Of course, it is not final until the US president [Donald Trump] agrees on it. So, at the moment, we are at that stage.”

    Khalilzad said that under the draft agreement, the U.S. would withdraw 5,000 troops from five bases in Afghanistan within 135 days if the Taliban meets certain conditions.

    Engel first asked Khalilzad to appear before the committee in February in a joint invitation with Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas), the panel's ranking Republican, as well as in a missive with all committee Democrats in April.

    Engel signaled that his patience is running thin.

    "Given the challenges this Committee has faced in getting information from the Trump Administration on this issue, I want to be clear: I do not consider your testimony at this hearing optional. Your appearance before this Committee in an open setting is essential to our ability to carry out our oversight responsibilities. If this letter is insufficient to secure your attendance, I will consider other options that would ensure this hearing takes place in a timely manner," Engel wrote.

    Trump said last week that he will reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 8,600, but the U.S. will keep a presence after a deal is reached in the conflict that has been ongoing for the last 18 years.

    "Oh yeah, you have to keep a presence," Trump said in a Fox News radio interview. "We're going to keep a presence there. We're reducing that presence very substantially, and we're going to always have a presence. We're going to have high intelligence."
     
    Top