Reason one: Interventionism

Interventionism has failed America in providing a good footing for American folk abroad. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan created a hatred of America that manifested about a decade and a half after the invasion. Why? Bombs and martial law have had a (surprise) detrimental effect on the young folk from that time. They have grown with a deep seated resentment that has manifested in the resurgent Taliban and the new ISIS, both militantly anti-occupation and having the latter only being near universally opposed because of how barbaric it is. Further invasion will not work.
Neither will sanction. Sanction will not work because it destroys the incentive for peace, profit. Cutting off trade makes it a much better time for folk who profit off of war to lobby the government into fighting, because they are the ones making more money to bribe officials. All in all, interventionism dooms Americans to endless fighting and loss, and the folk they fight endless fighting and loss. What's the alternative?

Free trade.

Free trade (something Trump opposes) is the best form of diplomacy. All good, no badness. Would a child in Iran want to be greeted by , a missile made in America or a toy made in America? What would leave a lasting mental scar on that child, watching his brother be torn asunder or watching his brother play with a toy car? Furthermore, it's hard to say someone will hate you because you give them fair prices and good products, so why the fuss about free trade as a alternative?

(Sorry this was partly a argument against interventionism and not purely a Trump directed argument)

(Will do more later)

Whoever says Trump will bring peace to the Middle East...they need a lobotomy.

The only way you can construe Trump's policy to be non-interventionist is to think that he's going to be so damn bad at foriegn policy and diplomacy that the US will be forced into isolationism through ostracization.

To be fair interventionism is one of the very, very few places I side with Trump more than Hillary. From my limited knowledge I think that Trump is less interventionist than Hillary. He's a strange Republican, but yet still an R, and he's very conservative, which is not what I agree with.

Side with Nicola. Election today.

Noone cares about the tiny Scottish election, except for a few Scot. Probably most Englishmen don't care, either. Anyhow, I made a list of bad things about all the weighty candidates, and Trump is definitely the most warmongering and violent of them all.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/145799-bernie-sanders-bad

*For killing innocent folk as policy to wage "total war".
*For supporting Israel.
*For greatening military spending.
*For drones gathering intelligence and killing folk over foreign countries.
*For upscaling the war on Mashriq.
**For sending footsoldiers.
*Torture them, kill their families and friends (as official policy and doctrine), total war, this is what America was founded on, f--- yeah!

Contrast H. Clinton

*For supporting Israel.
*For American drone warfare in foreign countries.
*For upscaling the war on Mashriq, but no footsoldiers.
*For forcibly stopping Russia from getting involved in Syria.
*For overthrowing Assad as long as America gets help from NATO.
*No torture.

Side with Nicola. Election today.

Well, noone's going to be voting for SNG elsewhere, so yes, but ideally, UKIP would have Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, while SNP and maybe a few Green and Work have England. That way, noone will do anything mad - no independences, but Britain stays in the EU (or something like that, at least - the EFTA I think would be better), and the Scots could rule Britain again, while UKIP makes sure they don't get too carried away with socialism, independence and some other bad policies they have. Frankly, I'd be UKIP all the way, if it wasn't for their "restrictive" immigration policy and militarism (Trident submarines...mmm, doesn't bode well).

Edited 5/5/2016 02:33:42

israel should be supported

they are our biggest ally

and home of the persecuted jews

ok, america needs more jus, apl jus, orunj jus, so you giv trump and i giv jus, k?

do not mock israel

kazoooooooooooooooo?!?£

ya only a idiot wouldnt support the state of israel

you had the arab world try to annihilate it twice

u have ppl that want it gone from the map

u have ppl who wanna destroy it to this day

it has to be protected

it our greatest ally

Edited 5/5/2016 03:02:14

Well, noone's going to be voting for SNG elsewhere, so yes, but ideally, UKIP would have Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, while SNP and maybe a few Green and Work have England.

Sadly it appears that it's the opposit. The half-decent voters aren't from England. And yea, UKIP isn't too radical outside of immigration/higher military spending. I've read an interesting article about it a few days ago, roughly saying that the far-right in europe talks that much about immigration because it's the only thing they have.


@e_e

ya only a idiot wouldnt support the state of israel

Only alienated support the state of israel the way it is now.

you had the arab world try to annihilate it twice

And as a revenge for it Israel occupied arab lands and expulsed arabs from the land they lived in since the fall of the roman empire.

u have ppl that want it gone from the map

As there are people that want america gone from the map.

u have ppl who wanna destroy it to this day

There are people that want to destroy america.

it has to be protected

I'm pretty sure Israel is well enough alone. Plus the region right won't as easily try to attack israel again; Egypt is an ally, the Sunnis worry about the shia and vice and versa; Syria is fucked up.

it our greatest ally

After France, UK, Japan, Germany and Turkey.

Hillary is far worse than Trump in foreign policy. The only person more isolationist than Trump is Bernie.

EDIT: yep, I meant more

Edited 5/5/2016 13:46:35

Why is supporting Israel bad?

The only person less isolationist than Trump is Bernie.

You mean more isolationist?

Why is supporting Israel bad?

There's no such a thing as bad and good, but rather a combination of both. Today the state of Israel makes more evil than good. Some people will defend it for the good it does, others will defend it for the strategic position of the nation or for cultural similarity against he evil arab/muslims; on the other side, people will criticize it for the evil it does, for the fact that Israel is a state serving America or for cultural problem of these evil occidental/jews.

Now let's keep it to the facts that matter and that really should be important when you take your side when it comes to Israel; comparing the ammount of good it does x the ammount of evil.


Good:
- Only jewish state in the world, it's a land of refuge for jews in the world.

And I think that's it really.


Evil:
- Colonization of palestinian lands, with the expulsion of families that lived in the region for a thousand years in order to create room for jews; The colonies are walled and non-israelis can't really enter them.
- Warmongering speeches and threats against gaza.
- Disproportionate military response against palestinian attacks.
- Segregational system against arabs that keep getting harsher by every day (I find it ironic when you see the holocaust).
- Non-respect of border agreements that were signed off so the state of Israel could exist in the first place.
- Weak condemnation of jewish extremism; to be fair it's becoming more frequent that there is some kind of condemnation, but it is still too weak.
- War crimes perpetrated in palestinian territories.


So seriously, when you know all the the information, you need to ask yourself if the inconditional support of Israel is a desirable thing. If you don't know the evil it does because of bad information or if you believe in the myth of the moral state that gets bullied by it's neighbors, than you may think that the state of Israel should be defended the way it is. The argumentation of anti-arab policies or strategic position is a total bullshit, because ppl can use the reverse to attack the state of Israel and they're gonna be as right as you are: 0%. There is a reason why all the cool nations


What I believe is right is that the state of Israel make changes to itself. First by abandoning colonized lands and allow the palestinians to rule themselves. In a second way by not using their army unless a real threat against the state exists. In a third way by accepting the arab israelis as full citizens and stop the discrimination.


If they do all of it I'm sure the tensions with arabs will greatly be reduced and that the international community will again support the country.

Good:
- Only jewish state in the world, it's a land of refuge for jews in the world.

And I think that's it really.

What about being the only functioning state in the Middle East with respect for religious rights, democracy and equality?

First by abandoning colonized lands and allow the palestinians to rule themselves.

If Israel gives the Palestinians a nation, they will only demand more. The Muslims believe the Israeli's are apes, and swear to destroy them. There is no compromising with people like that. I too think a two-state solution would be nice, but you can't do that when the other partner wants you exterminated. Seriously, this would destroy Israel in 10-20 years.

In a third way by accepting the arab israelis as full citizens and stop the discrimination.

FFS, there is NO FUCKING APARTHEID IN ISRAEL! Name one right (besides being exempted from the draft) that Arab Israelis don't have.

Seriously, this would destroy Israel in 10-20 years.

Iran, specifically, said there will be no Israel in 20 years.

What about being the only functioning state in the Middle East with respect for religious rights, democracy and equality?

Wrong, the arab emirates aren't bad either. Plus equality isn't archieved when you discriminate arabs; just like you can't say there's equality in america in regards of police threating blacks.

If Israel gives the Palestinians a nation, they will only demand more. The Muslims believe the Israeli's are apes, and swear to destroy them. There is no compromising with people like that. I too think a two-state solution would be nice, but you can't do that when the other partner wants you exterminated. Seriously, this would destroy Israel in 10-20 years.

An official recognition of Israel is of-course a pre-requisite to the creation of a palestinian state. Also creating a second state woun't make Israel more vulnerable than it is now. Israel has a very strong military and a huge american support, creating a palestinian state will only take away the favourite argument against Israel.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israeli-soldier-filmed-executing-wounded-palestinian-man/

Iran, specifically, said there will be no Israel in 20 years.

That's a strategic move from Iran. It's the only thing they have in common with other arab nations when it comes to state foreign policies besides from the american hatred it shares with some other leaders, they use this speech in order to manipulate the sunnis to like them more. "The ennemy of my ennemy is my friend" kind of policy. Again a palestinian state will only reduce Iran's power on the region taking away one of it's core foreign policy reason of existance as arabs will dislike less the Israelis as a hole.

Iran selects mission "The Rival of Your Rival"

Iran diplomatically insults Israel

+25 relation with Saudi Arabia

lol