Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign Policy Views. TRUMP: Well, it. You know, if you look at how we backed our enemies, it hasn. When you look at various places throughout the world, it hasn. And, you know, I think it. You know, something like that, unless we get very strong, very powerful and very rich, quickly, I. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem. You very well may have a better case right there. But you may very well have a better case. You know, one of the things with the, with our Japanese relationship, and I. Here's the passers list in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) or Teachers Board exam held in March 2016 for the ELEMENTARY LEVEL. These are the international days currently observed by the United Nations. New international days are established regularly. The resolution establishing each international day is listed in parenthesis.I have many, many friends there. I do business with Japan. But, that, if we are attacked, they don. In other words, if we. Would you be willing to have the U. S. When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those? TRUMP: I don. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M. I. T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M. I. T. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say. HABERMAN: O. K. SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth. TRUMP: First off, we. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries nonfunctioning with a strong use of cyber. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country. HABERMAN: Mr. Trump, just a quick follow- up on that question. As you know, we discovered in recent years that the U. S. Edward Snowden has caused us tremendous problems. Edward Snowden has been, you know, you have the two views on Snowden, obviously: You have, he. I think and I think it. Was that the right decision? TRUMP: Well you see, I don. You understand what I mean by that, David. You know, that really, where there. We go and we send 5. Middle East and President Obama gets up and announces that we. Fifty very special soldiers. And they now have a target on their back, and everything we do, we announce, instead of winning, and announcing when it. I would like to see what they. Because you know, many countries, I can. I think that was a great disservice done by Edward Snowden. That I can tell you. How to Defeat ISISHABERMAN: Mr. Trump, you have talked about your plans to defeat ISIS, and how you would approach it. Would you be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they. The beautiful thing about oil is that, you know, we. And all of a sudden we. I thought it would destabilize the Middle East, and it has destabilized it, it. The way Obama got out of the war was, you know, disgraceful, and idiotic. When he announced the date certain, they pulled back, and they said, . And they pulled back, and then, you know, it. But, I think that President Obama, the way he got out of that war was unbelievable. I think Hillary Clinton was catastrophic in those decisions, having to do with Libya and just about everything else. Every bad decision that you could make in the Middle East was made. And now if you look at it, if you would go back 1. I. Far worse. SANGER: But I just want to make sure I understand your answer to Maggie. So you said earlier this week that we should use air power but not send in ground forces. That had to be done by the regional Arab partners. We assume by that, you mean the Saudis, the U. A. E. The answer is, probably yes, but I would also say this: We are not being reimbursed for our protection of many of the countries that you. You know, Saudi Arabia, for a period of time, now the oil has gone down, but still the numbers are phenomenal, and the amount of money they have is phenomenal. But we protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries. That would include Saudi Arabia, but it would include many other countries, as you know. We lose monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn. It would be, you know, a catastrophic failure without our protection. So, I would say this, I would say at a minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed, I mean, to a point that. I think if Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection of our country. It would be, whether it was internal or external, it wouldn. And frankly, I think it. Our country is a debtor nation, we. I mean, we owe trillions of dollars to people that are buying our bonds, in the form of other countries. You look at China, where we owe them $1. Japan, $1. 5 trillion. I want it to be the other way. One of the reasons we. The military is to be policeman for other countries. And to watch over other countries. And there comes a point that, and many of these countries are tremendously rich countries. Not powerful countries, but . And then the hope is to turn all those forces, including Russia and Iran, against ISIS. Is that the right way to do it? Do you have an alternative approach? TRUMP: Well, I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I. But at the same time . You have to pick one or the other. And you have to go at . And they hardly hit the oil. They hardly make a dent in the oil. SANGER: The oil that ISIS is pumping. TRUMP: Yes, the oil that ISIS is pumping, where they. You know, they have very sophisticated banking channels, which I understand, but I don. That, you know, many people in countries that you think are our allies, are giving ISIS tremendous amounts of money and it. And we should have stopped those banking channels long ago and I think we. And very sophisticated channels. They call them the dark channels. Very sophisticated channels. And money is coming in from people that we think are our allies. Trump, I also want to go back to something you said earlier this week about NATO being ineffective. But I was asked a question about NATO, and I. I call them the leftovers.(Laughter.)So anyway, but the question was asked of me a few days ago about NATO, and I said, well, I have two problems with NATO. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you? Which is amazing in itself. Yes? SANGER: What they. They are rebuilding their nuclear arsenal. Things that have at least echoes of the old Cold War. The view is that their mission is coming back. Do you agree with that? TRUMP: I. 1, we pay far too much. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we. But even their neighbors didn. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine ? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that . And then I say, and on top of everything else ! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn? I would agree with him. SANGER: And so in the end do you agree that Russia is going to end up dominating the Ukraine? TRUMP: Well, unless, unless there is, you know, somewhat of a resurgence frankly from people that are around it. Or they would ask us for help. Would you observe that part of the treaty? TRUMP: Yeah, I would. I mean, we defend everybody. No matter who it is, we defend everybody. But we defend everybody. When in doubt, come to the United States. In some cases free of charge. And in all cases for a substantially, you know, greater amount. We spend a substantially greater amount than what the people are paying. We, we have to think also in terms . Employment Situation Summary.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |