Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sien | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

sien

Can he be please be President for the next 4 years as well?

regards the rest of the world

View on HN

That's what's crazy. Some of the US wants Trump to be president, 99% of the world doesn't. What's the disconnect?

if that were true, which it's not, what does it matter? it's not their country... sovereignty is a thing still

International treaties are a thing too - e.g. ANZUS treaty here in Australia at a time when China is sabre rattling in the region. We don't want a US president who is going to dismantle such treaties at a vital time.

So what? what does the United States care what anyone else thinks? We need to have a strong country first before we can share our prosperity. Nothing he has said is unreasonable...

So, outside of the war of Independence, can you show me a list of wars that the US has been involved in where they did NOT have any allied countries fighting alongside them? But lets just piss off all countries who have fought alongside the US in most of the conflicts in modern history anyway, because there can't be any negative ramifications, right?

Isolationist policies are great in theory. Just ask Kim whatsisname in North Korea how it is working out for him.

You're comparing "America First" to North Korean isolationism? That's not what he's saying. He's saying we need to be smart in our treaties and stop being the country that pays for everyone else. We have 20TRILLION in debt.

The US is different? I'm sure if you polled Americans on the next UK election you'd get a very different answer.

If you knew that 99% of other NFL teams didn't want your team to hire a particular coach, would you see this as an indicator that he is a poor choice?

99% of the world benefits from the US making poor trade deals.

Less direct connection to the political duopoly?

Also, less exposure to American news as it hits the American public?

I'd bet that a great number of people in Australia (for example) might talk trash about Trump, but vote for him had he emerged here, from their favoured party, taking a hard line on immigration, etc. We do have a political system that allows more effective voting for minor parties, but I still think he'd pick up primary votes. I know of a lot of who I would consider smart people who have very strong, negative feelings on Muslim immigration for example.

>What's the disconnect?

The millions of immigrants who have to leave their homes because of Hillary and Obama's failure in the Middle East probably don't want any more of that incompetence.

What were they supposed to do with Arab spring? They didn't intervene. Should they have intervened?

Many failures. Not all failures.

99% of the World sees Americans arguing and fighting with each other about which Lizard Person is slightly less evil.

They're still Lizard People...

Because we need more Libyas and Syrias...

The Libyan intervention was probably a mistake (though it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq).

But what should he have done about Syria?

stayed in iraq longer, stop supporting the saudis, stop selling arms to saudi/rebel/others

Might want to brush up on your world affairs.

Iraq is a sovereign country. They asked the US to leave and quite rightly they did. And all of this happened under GWB's watch.

A permanent occupation of Iraq in a situation where you've intentionally broken relations with Iraq's large and powerful neighbor Saudi Arabia sounds like a recipe for much larger trouble than even current Syria!

Stop defending Aleppo.

Obama should stop defending Aleppo? How? Asking the rebels to surrender?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/us-advisers-wound...

Stop giving terrorists (Al-Nusra) advisors.

Is there any reputable evidence that the US is supporting Al Nusra?

Yes.

And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/us-support-for-...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-w...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-equipme...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715977/al-nusra-us-armin...

> And who do you think these U.S. advisors were helping, really? The Syrian army?

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

Your four links show zero cases of the US supporting Al Nusra. One's talking about how in the chaos the lines between groups get blurred, one's random op-ed spitballing from a newspaper owned by a Russian oligarch, one's talking about a rebel group negotiating for safe passage (six pickup trucks and some ammo - having to include that really helps make my point), and the last is claiming that the US supporting UAE/Saudis means the US is supporting Al Nusra.

> it's important to note it was a NATO operation with full support from European partners, unlike the invasion of Iraq

Not wrong in the general thrust, but I think "full support from European partners" is overstating it a bit. By raw numbers, it had support of about half of the European NATO members. It's true that the half supporting were generally more important/core members than the half abstaining or opposing though; the only really core NATO member who conspicuously abstained was Germany. Others abstaining were mostly new or more peripheral members, but still a significant number: Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Hungary.

Libya was going to happen with or without US support. And let's be clear the involvement of the US was limited to refuelling, air support i.e minimal.

But remember Gaddafi was imminently going to wipe out significant numbers of opposition supporters. So it was always going to be a lose-lose situation.

Obama's probably significantly less likely to create as many Libyas and Syrias than Clinton or Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com