The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Incoming tweet storm
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Lesson here is, you dont **** with our foreign policy. There a reason it never changes no matter who wins.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
57Brave
Well-known member
Jeff Tiedrich
@itsJeffTiedrich
·
16h
please tell me again how a bunch of lifelong Republicans in the FBI colluded
with Russia and Hillary to lose her own election so that Trump could win
so that then the deep state could take him down and proof of the whole
plot is hidden in a server in Ukraine,
because derpity derp
@itsJeffTiedrich
·
16h
please tell me again how a bunch of lifelong Republicans in the FBI colluded
with Russia and Hillary to lose her own election so that Trump could win
so that then the deep state could take him down and proof of the whole
plot is hidden in a server in Ukraine,
because derpity derp
Best thing I've seen in a really long time.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Trump says in this press conference over a million people were killed under Obama but we havent had a drop of blood under Trump..... and the Kurds are very happy.... Is he talking about people in Syria?The middle east in general? US Soldiers? A million of who died under Obama that have shed no blood under Trump? Of course he runs from the press conference and takes no questions.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I don’t know how anyone could fall for the line that we’re “stopping endless wars” when we’re sending more troops to the Gulf than we’re putatively removing from Syria, participating in a humanitarian disaster in Yemen, and stepping up drone/spec operations all over Africa.
Trump admits there was only less than a hundred US troops embedded with the Kurds.
Leaving them and pulling out wasn't about logistics it was about symbolism and showing solidarity and strength. Erdogan would not have attacked them if our troops were firmly placed there. It was the lowest risk move possible to keep that small amount there. It wasn't like we were sending in a surge of troops there.
sturg claims this is about questioning our foreign policy, when clearly Trump has demonstrated with his comments about this issue in the last week that he has zero knowledge of not just foreign policy, but the situation on the ground there.
Again, the Kurds took big hits and did the heavy lifting, at minimum we owe them our loyalty. What trump did wasn't "questioning our foreign policy" like someone here keeps trying to spin it as, it was a careless move. And Don is trying to spin it as we need to bring all our troops home and endless wars yadda yadda.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
its ok to be a maverick and question the mainstream consensus...not ok to be an incompetent impulsive idiot
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
McConnell lays out the dimensions of chosen one's strategic blunder
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a811a8-f1cd-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html
Withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances. Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I have worked with three presidential administrations to fight radical Islamist terrorism. I have distilled three principal lessons about combating this complex threat.
Lesson No. 1 is that the threat is real and cannot be wished away. These fanatics threaten American interests and American lives. If permitted to regroup and establish havens, they will bring terror to our shores.
Second, there is no substitute for American leadership. No other nation can match our capability to spearhead multinational campaigns that can defeat terrorists and help stabilize the region. Libya and Syria both testify to the bloody results of the Obama administration’s “leading from behind.”
This truth extends well beyond counterterrorism. If we Americans care at all about the post-World War II international system that has sustained an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity and technological development, we must recognize that we are its indispensable nation. We built this system, we sustained it and we have benefited from it most of all.
When the United States threw off the comforting blanket of isolationism in the 1940s and took the mantle of global leadership, we made the whole world better, but we specifically made it much better for the United States. If we abandon that mantle today, we can be sure that a new world order will be made — and not on terms favorable to us.
The third lesson is that we are not in this fight alone. In recent years, the campaigns against the Islamic State and the Taliban, in Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, have been waged primarily by local forces. The United States has mainly contributed limited, specialized capabilities that enable our local partners to succeed. Ironically, Syria had been a model for this increasingly successful approach.
As we seek to pick up the pieces, we must remain guided by our national interests and not emotions. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offensive into northeastern Syria is misguided, is it really the case that the United States would prefer that Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces control the region rather than Turkey, our NATO ally?
We need to use both sticks and carrots to bring Turkey back in line while respecting its own legitimate security concerns. In addition to limiting Turkey’s incursion and encouraging an enduring cease-fire, we should create conditions for the reintroduction of U.S. troops and move Turkey away from Russia and back into the NATO fold.
To keep pressure on Islamic State terrorists, deter Iranian aggression and buy our local partners more leverage to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad to end the underlying conflict, we should retain a limited military presence in Syria and maintain our presence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. We must also work closely with allies threatened by this chaos, such as Israel and Jordan, and redouble international efforts to pressure the Assad regime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a811a8-f1cd-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html
Withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances. Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I have worked with three presidential administrations to fight radical Islamist terrorism. I have distilled three principal lessons about combating this complex threat.
Lesson No. 1 is that the threat is real and cannot be wished away. These fanatics threaten American interests and American lives. If permitted to regroup and establish havens, they will bring terror to our shores.
Second, there is no substitute for American leadership. No other nation can match our capability to spearhead multinational campaigns that can defeat terrorists and help stabilize the region. Libya and Syria both testify to the bloody results of the Obama administration’s “leading from behind.”
This truth extends well beyond counterterrorism. If we Americans care at all about the post-World War II international system that has sustained an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity and technological development, we must recognize that we are its indispensable nation. We built this system, we sustained it and we have benefited from it most of all.
When the United States threw off the comforting blanket of isolationism in the 1940s and took the mantle of global leadership, we made the whole world better, but we specifically made it much better for the United States. If we abandon that mantle today, we can be sure that a new world order will be made — and not on terms favorable to us.
The third lesson is that we are not in this fight alone. In recent years, the campaigns against the Islamic State and the Taliban, in Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, have been waged primarily by local forces. The United States has mainly contributed limited, specialized capabilities that enable our local partners to succeed. Ironically, Syria had been a model for this increasingly successful approach.
As we seek to pick up the pieces, we must remain guided by our national interests and not emotions. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offensive into northeastern Syria is misguided, is it really the case that the United States would prefer that Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces control the region rather than Turkey, our NATO ally?
We need to use both sticks and carrots to bring Turkey back in line while respecting its own legitimate security concerns. In addition to limiting Turkey’s incursion and encouraging an enduring cease-fire, we should create conditions for the reintroduction of U.S. troops and move Turkey away from Russia and back into the NATO fold.
To keep pressure on Islamic State terrorists, deter Iranian aggression and buy our local partners more leverage to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad to end the underlying conflict, we should retain a limited military presence in Syria and maintain our presence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. We must also work closely with allies threatened by this chaos, such as Israel and Jordan, and redouble international efforts to pressure the Assad regime.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
lest it be forgotten we got involved in Syria mostly due to ISIS establishing a caliphate there that for a time expanded rapidly into Iraq
partly through serendipity and partly through an opportunistic alliance we actually achieved something there...and chosen one has thrown that away
i'll add one more thought: Turkey is not the main beneficiary of chosen one's decision...in fact there is a good chance they come to regret what they are doing...the main beneficiaries are the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran, probably in that order...above all this is a yuge gift to Assad
partly through serendipity and partly through an opportunistic alliance we actually achieved something there...and chosen one has thrown that away
i'll add one more thought: Turkey is not the main beneficiary of chosen one's decision...in fact there is a good chance they come to regret what they are doing...the main beneficiaries are the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran, probably in that order...above all this is a yuge gift to Assad
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
[tw]1185297980473139204[/tw]
I think many of us lost sight of this yesterday, but it bears repeating.
The emoluments clause says the president may not, without the consent of Congress, accept compensation “of any kind whatever” from any “foreign state.” If a Doral summit does not violate this stricture, then nothing does.
I think many of us lost sight of this yesterday, but it bears repeating.
The emoluments clause says the president may not, without the consent of Congress, accept compensation “of any kind whatever” from any “foreign state.” If a Doral summit does not violate this stricture, then nothing does.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...mises-legal-action-highly-biased-news-1248699
Uh, the Presidnt is trying to shake down a major news network...... can he not go a day without a major scandal?
Uh, the Presidnt is trying to shake down a major news network...... can he not go a day without a major scandal?