[erimir]

Originally Posted by Watser?

No, because there is a difference in the US. Of course Muslims will be off worse inside the US under Trump. Outside the US it won't make any difference whatsoever.

The Middle Eastern ones have plenty relatives in the Middle East, but ok. And I think taking in more refugees could've made a difference to some people outside the US. Although I guess they would be converted into Americans after they arrive.

You seem to think that Trump's blatant anti-Muslim bigotry and the actions he takes against US Muslims won't bleed over into US foreign policy. It's like how you or davidm were touting his claims to be "neutral" between Israel and Palestine like they meant something. How's that working out regarding his selection for US ambassador to Israel?

And of course, US public opinion of Muslims probably has some connection to US foreign policy. It's short-sighted to act like treatment of Muslim-Americans won't have implications for US treatment of Muslim countries, IMO.

"No difference whatsoever"... we'll see. I think you're underestimating how bad Trump could be. I don't think him firing a nuke is an implausible scenario. I'd bet that would isolate the US internationally though, so maybe you'd think of it as a good thing.

As for Clinton, she would have been even worse than Obama.

I agree that she would've been worse. I do think that plenty of the rhetoric about her foreign policy was exaggerated, however.

There's another reason why Trump may be even better in the end though, which is not so much about Trump/Bush or Clinton/Obama but about the rest of the world and the US. Under Bush there was a large anti-war movement in the US and in Europe, which disappeared under Obama, even though things were not improving. At. All.

Right, so under Trump there will be a movement which will reflect sincere anti-war beliefs, and when things improve a bit because of changes in government, they won't just wither away again?

This isn't so much a "good thing" as it is the revelation of the shallowness of support for your cause. If you're relying on the unpopularity of the American president for your anti-war movement, it's probably not going to achieve much of anything permanent, and maybe not that much temporary either.

I didn't say it is.

You gave it as evidence of Obama being just as bad or worse than Bush. I mean, yeah you didn't say "all". But it must be significantly Obama's fault if it's going to count for much vs. Bush being the primary actor in starting the Iraq War.

As for Yemen, I do think the US could have reined in the Saudis. But the rest of the world doesn't seem to give much of a crap either.

Right, so worse than Bush I guess.