Posted on 04/01/2016 6:44:08 AM PDT by McGruff
It’s the totally unthinkable question that Americans find themselves confronting this week: What would President Donald Trump do in a genuine national crisis?
After a series of overseas terror attacks and some startling statements about nuclear weapons and torture, the world’s attention has turned to Trump’s foreign policy—an area where he has few advisers, no experience and a tendency to fire off answers and deal with the fallout later. The reality of a Trump candidacy has begun to set in: If Trump is elected and a major national crisis hits, he’ll be the one with his hands on the button. He’ll be at the head of the table in the Situation Room. His decisions would steer America’s immediate response and could set the course of American policy for years.
What’s hard to project with a normal politician is nearly impossible to guess with Trump. He has no foreign policy or public service experience, which means there’s no official record to consult, and his public statements, while extreme, have been vague. The saber-rattling statements that excite his supporters also suggest he has disregard for linchpins of the global order like NATO, the Geneva Conventions and the hard-won global nuclear-weapons limits
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Cruz’s response:
Give a rambling 60 minute speech on how he’s already won.
Challenge Bin Laden to debates.
What would Trump do???? Threaten a lawsuit!!!!
Despite anything Trump says about GW’s policy...
Had Trump been president, Saddam would still be dead. Maybe sooner.
Politico Mag:
“...global order like NATO, the Geneva Conventions and the hard-won global nuclear-weapons limits...”
WTH is wrong with you???
NATO??? Global Order??? Where is there global order? Who is NATO anymore??? NATO is massive amounts of American dollars and troops and little to NO assistance from other so-called member nations...
The Geneva Convention rules rules apply to warfare between nation/states...It has nothing to do with terrorist organizations fanning out throughout the world...
“Hard won” nuclear weapons limits??? ROFL...
Several countrie have limited their weapons to only enough to destroy the world 7 or 8 times over...Others, such as Iran, who has the blessings and financial assistance from Obama, and North Korea are working as hard as they can to get as many nukes as they can and the so-called “leaders” of the free world are doing what??
They are making speeches “strongly” condemning them...
Yep...N Korea, you have just been “strongly” condemned...
What a joke...
Al Gore would have had them arrested and tried in court.
Maybe
That's an interesting question. As a war president, would Gore have been an FDR or an LBJ? While it's true that Bush II keep the homeland safe after 9-11 (no small feat), overseas Bush II went the LBJ route. Hearts and minds, nation-building, and all that.
He would not have gone to war with Iraq, when Saudi had far more participants in the attack, and, iirc, Iraq had zero.
Well, we know EXACTLY what the lying dog hillary robbem klipem would do...........NOTHING, and then make up a lie about why it happened, like a video?
Well he wouldn’t tell the terrorists “you’re not strong” like Obama did to “defeat” ISIS!
My problem isn’t being hissy-fit concerned about what Trump would do. My problem is in what I know what Ryan, Bush, Kasich or any of the other establishment politicians waiting in the wings to steal a nomination have either done by example or in response to similar events or shown by their backbiting conniving actions that show a lack of spine. They all have either gone along with 8 years of Obama inaction to it.
IOW, I KNOW exactly what they’d do and THAT is the problem
THANK YOU GAFFER ; WORTH REPEATING
I feel Trump would take the “Patton/McArthur” approach, but with modern weapons and technology...Eliminate the enemy...
I'll provide the answer for this one......
Does everyone here remember that when Reagan won the general election for his 1st term ....the Iranians let the hostages go....Immediately!
Same exact principle here. No country and no terror group will attack our country or our citizens again ---for fear of what the new President might do! Period! Case Closed! No Rebutal!
I like that!!!
He would have immediately halted all immigration from Muslim countries.
I think he would have taken the Reagan approach and launched a retribution against the heads of state or religion of anyone fingered as complicit.
He would halt all those we have no known background on.
His response would be unpredictable ... which would deter many from testing him.
I agree, but I don’t think he would stop at that...
A lot would depend on the severity of the attack...One lik 9-11 would probably be enough to set off the “Patton” approach I suggested...
The USS Cole incident would probably just be elimination of the heads of government in the offending country...
I beg to differ
I think LBJ would have been better than FDR
LBJ was no Reds appeaser
FDR ....guilty rich that he was...did not see the Reds as the enemy LBJ did
He sympathized with them like Obama does Islam
He’d hit back and blame someone else if it doesn’t go well....this regardless of what and who advises him otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.