Trump Declares Victory Over ISIS

[idhawkman]

Crickets over POTUS and FLOTUS visiting the troops in Iraq today? I wonder why....

I was actually preparing to laud an actual good move albeit pretty late in the game. But your comments just demonstrate how far Trump has degraded the office that when he simply acts presidential such as showing a bit of respect for GHWB or actually visiting troops abroad it’s supposed to be a cause for celebration and vindication. Hopefully it’s the start of a more stable presidency cause it’s been anything but so far.

Celebration? Vindication? How about simply acknowledging it? Lord knows you overhype every little pimple he has, why not blow something like this up the same way or at least acknowledge it. (Which I will give you credit for that you were "about to" do something over it.)

[RiverDog]

We know for a fact what Trump said/tweeted and the contents of Mattis's resignation letter, and they clearly don't match up (retirement vs. resign in protest). We also know for a fact that Trump initially announced that Mattis would leave on Feb. 28 then subsequently moved that date up by 2 months, the reason of which is the only thing that is subject to speculation, and yours is no more persuasive than ours.

Think about it this way, As POTUS I would assume that his letter which he handed to me directly and we discussed in the privacy of the oval office would be kept between us. There's no need to come out and trash him at that point.

Trump either grossly misinterpreted Mattis's resignation letter or he lied about the contents. The word "retired" never appeared in it. And as far as what Mattis said in his letter, IMO it was reasonably worded...."deserves a Secretary of Defense with views more in line with his own."

It was Mattis who leaked the letter to the press to make HIS motives known.

What do you mean "leaked"? It was his resignation letter, and there was no requirement that it be kept private. So long as he doesn't disclose classified information, he can do with it what he chooses.

At that point, you have no choice as a leader than to remove the rotting fruit from the barrell before it spoils the whole thing. Letting him meet with allies and address NATO is not on the table if that is his motivation. I'm surprised he didn't have him walked.

I wouldn't have blamed Trump, either, had he let him go when Trump first read the letter. Like I said, there was no indication anywhere that what Mattis said to Trump was supposed to be kept in confidence. Mattis obviously felt that the situation was bad enough to where he felt that he had to let the public know exactly why he was resigning.

[Hawktawk]

The letter is very sophisticated in that it lays out Mattis correct reasoned stable world view politically , militarily etc then says you have a right to a guy who thinks like you, not like me. It cut like a knife and went right over trumps head. Like his flip flop on the shutdown it was the right wing talking heads who made up his mind for him. From the sounds of things mattis might have well left a long time ago. Trump takes direction from nobody but himself and faux news.

[burrrton]

Mattis obviously felt that the situation was bad enough to where he felt that he had to let the public know exactly why he was resigning.

Yup. And that's what's worrying. Mattis is the one who should be making the calls on grave matters like this. He's not only in a position in which he should be consulted, but he's also so far past over-qualified for doing so it would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

[idhawkman]

I wouldn't have blamed Trump, either, had he let him go when Trump first read the letter. Like I said, there was no indication anywhere that what Mattis said to Trump was supposed to be kept in confidence. Mattis obviously felt that the situation was bad enough to where he felt that he had to let the public know exactly why he was resigning.

Oh for Chissake River, you never managed people or fired them or had them quit? If you fired someone would you run out and announce it to the world? If you came to a mutual understanding that your goals and their goals were different would you think you needed to announce it to the world? Exactly!

Remember, Trump is a counter puncher. He was fine with letting Mattis go out on a high note but no, Mattis wanted to be run out of town just like Obama did. Trump is the commander in chief and if Mattis can't handle that then it is he who has the problem.

[idhawkman]

Yup. And that's what's worrying. Mattis is the one who should be making the calls on grave matters like this. He's not only in a position in which he should be consulted, but he's also so far past over-qualified for doing so it would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

Mattis wasn't even a gleam in his father's eye when the US started nation building. Everything he knows is built around what Trump doesn't want to do anymore and we frankly can't afford it. Our fertility rate in the US is down to 1.8% and by reports, its because of the uncertainty of debt, cost of raising a kid, education, etc. We can not support our own nation and for that matter, most of Europe is the same way. We just can't afford to build other nations around the world, provide social programs to take care of everything for everyone and expect our population to have no worries over it.

Part of the report that came out today states that marriage holds less benefits for men in today's world - ever wonder why that is? We are simply in debt way too far to keep building nations and nation building is all Mattis was advising Trump to do. "Keep Russia and Iran at bay" crap!

Why can't we bring our soldiers home from Germany, Japan and Korea? Just because we fought there 70 years ago doesn't mean we have to stay there forever. Another 50 years in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc is just unsustainable. Israel and the US blasted 100s of ISIS fighters into their afterlife with virgins waiting for them from Iraq and Israel over the weekend. We don't need Mattis building bases in a civil war Syria at this time in our history. Besides, we'll know very well who is right in 2 years so why worry about it until then?

[idhawkman]

The letter is very sophisticated in that it lays out Mattis correct reasoned stable world view politically , militarily etc then says you have a right to a guy who thinks like you, not like me. It cut like a knife and went right over trumps head. Like his flip flop on the shutdown it was the right wing talking heads who made up his mind for him. From the sounds of things mattis might have well left a long time ago. Trump takes direction from nobody but himself and faux news.

I'm having a very hard time believing you were ever a conservative.

[Hawktawk]

Yeah the trump zombie army always does have a hard time with us never trumper republican refugees . Most came home holding their nose in 2016 but not me. My ranks are growing though. Fully 19 % of republicans favor a single term for trump and many more than that would welcome a primary challenge from the right person.


It’s not nearly as much the message as it is the man. Unhinged and unfit . Sorry to bust your bubble there’s a few conservative lifelong republicans that will never drink the kool aid of this cult of personality .

[idhawkman]

Yeah the trump zombie army always does have a hard time with us never trumper republican refugees . Most came home holding their nose in 2016 but not me. My ranks are growing though. Fully 19 % of republicans favor a single term for trump and many more than that would welcome a primary challenge from the right person.


It’s not nearly as much the message as it is the man. Unhinged and unfit . Sorry to bust your bubble there’s a few conservative lifelong republicans that will never drink the kool aid of this cult of personality .

Right Wing Talking Heads is straight from the 90's and the "Vast Rigth Wing Conspiracy" days. So not believing you as a conservative at all is quite plausible.

[burrrton]

Mattis wasn't even a gleam in his father's eye when the US started nation building. Everything he knows is built around what Trump doesn't want to do anymore and we frankly can't afford it.

Oh for chrissakes, ID- there are a lot of people (formerly?) in the Trump admin you can bag on- Mattis isn't one of them.

Just stop.

So not believing you as a conservative at all is quite plausible.

Yeah, tawk- you're like the Max Boot types. You can't claim to have "always been a conservative" when you start rejecting literally every tenet of that philosophy the instant some douchebag you don't like wins the nomination for the party that has traditionally represented those views.

You're acting out nothing more than bog standard Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[idhawkman]

For the record, I didn't bag on him initially. It was only after he wanted to undermine the POTUS and what the POTUS ran on that he showed his colors. I have no problem with dissent and advising the president of how you dissent but in the end, it is HIS (POTUS') decision to make and if you don't agree with it, you shouldn't run to the press and say "He's being mean and not listening to me." Mattis should have stuck to his guns and advised the POTUS on his input and if he found that he could no longer do that, then step aside and let someone else do a better job at it.

Frankly, I think it was Mattis' inability to persuade the POTUS to change his decades old stance on not getting into never ending wars and leaving our troops stranded abroad. Trump has not changed on his position and neither has Mattis but Mattis serves at the PLEASURE of the POTUS and if he isn't capable of doing that the right thing to do is step aside without a big fuss. It appears POTUS was willing to do that and allow Mattis to quietly and heroically do just that unlike what Obama did to Mattis. Unfortunately, Mattis forgot his place and stepped outside the bounds and had to be put back in line. I highly doubt you'll hear anymore from Mattis if he's the fine military officer I think he is.

[Aseahawkfan]

There are smart, responsible ways to end conflicts, and there are moronic, self-defeating ways to end conflicts- Mattis' reaction, and Trump's reaction to that, should tell you which this is.

Mattis is arguably the best Secretary of Defense in recent memory, and easily the most competent, qualified member of the administration, and dumbsht doesn't even fcking run it by him (at least from what I've read)?

Inexcusable, and gives my optimism about surviving 4-8 years of this boob a big hit.

Mattis' reputation and general service was all I had to go on. Fact is that Mattis may have been part of the old school conservative war agenda that puts business interests including the defense business and power mongering above the needs of Americans. We have been spending American lives and money on conflicts that we have no business involving ourselves in to maintain control of the world for our oil companies and oil control. These alliances have cost of billions, maybe trillions of dollars, and countless lives.

What have created? Al Qaeda who bit us? Propped up dictorships like Saddam and Saudi Arabia? Help these dictators oppress their people? Sided with the wrong people in conflicts like Vietnam because of alliances with France? We do the same thing to maintain Israel. You ever spend time reading on what we get from these alliances? Not much. We do them because we have become mired in their affairs due to past decisions.

Just like Trump doesn't seem to want to tow the line on other issues, he's ending past administration waste on military activity. I believe his decision will save American lives wasted on foreign wars. I applaud him for it. The war hawks in Washington who had deferments and get deferments for their relatives go F themselves. I would not be surprised if Mattis was part of that war mongering mentality that has kept us in constant war since the end of World War 1. We need a change.

This is one decision I firmly agree with Trump on. Fact is Generals like Mattis and his ilk will find an excuse to keep American troops deployed in a state of near constant war at every opportunity like they've been taught to do. Only a strong, decisive president with a clear view to move us out of conflict will change that. Trump for all his shortcomings makes decisions and goes with it. I hope he follows through on this one. Let our people stand down for at least a few years. Keep our people out of harm's way when they are clearly based on evidence fighting on behalf of scum like Saudi Arabia and engaged in conflicts not benefiting us to keep unprofitable, corrupt "allies" happy.

Get us out that area of the world Trump. Bring our guys home. Don't let any of these scumbag warmongers making deals with these scumbag allies deter you. They'll keep us at war forever to benefit oil and defense contractors if they are able to. Get us out. Keep us out. No more Americans dying for scumbags with oil.

I'm not a war monger conservative like burrton. Not interested in making excuses or saying clever things like "This is chess not checkers" when my life isn't paying the check. We have the means to get oil elsewhere and need not sacrifice our young men and women in pointless wars for people that don't care about our values and leaders that use use like a paid army. I won't admonish Trump for a policy I agree with because I don't like the man. This is a good decision.

Erdogan wants to play power games in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, then Saudi Arabia and Turkey can pay the cost in money and lives, not America. Those scumbags can burn each other down as far as I'm concerned.

[Hawktawk]

Yeah, tawk- you're like the Max Boot types. You can't claim to have "always been a conservative" when you start rejecting literally every tenet of that philosophy the instant some douchebag you don't like wins the nomination for the party that has traditionally represented those views.

You're acting out nothing more than bog standard Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I’ve made it clear that I support tax reform but not at the expense of blowing a 1.3 trillion dollar hole in the deficit . I’m all for immingration reform but not administered by a white nationalist David Duke supporting racist . I’m for deregulation but not the scott Pruitt style slash and burn every environmental protection at the behest of his climate change denier . I could go on but my point is clear . As I’ve said much of what that is positive about this administration, A ,could have happened with any of the other 17 republicans running without the never ending dumpster fire and ,B , is the result of admittedly good hires many of whom are now gone while loony toons tweets insanity from the shitter at 1 AM, watches 8 hrs a day of cable news and generally behaves in an unhinged out of control manner most of the time . It’s the man not the message . I utterly reject him as the leader of the free world . It’s your ilk with your head in the sand . My mind is crystal clear.

[idhawkman]

Mattis' reputation and general service was all I had to go on. Fact is that Mattis may have been part of the old school conservative war agenda that puts business interests including the defense business and power mongering above the needs of Americans. We have been spending American lives and money on conflicts that we have no business involving ourselves in to maintain control of the world for our oil companies and oil control. These alliances have cost of billions, maybe trillions of dollars, and countless lives.

After doing some research here's the data to back up your suspicion on Mattis' being a old schooler.

1. He did NOT want Trump to withdraw from the Paris Accord on Climate Change.

2. He did NOT want the embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem.

3. He did NOT want Trump to withdraw from the Iran agreement.

4. He was given 6 months to withdraw from Syria and then Trump extended it another 6 months after which Trump announced it and forced his hand.

5. Did not agree with Trump that NATO allies should pay their fair share of the NATO budget. e.g. Germany is only at 1.3% of GDP and Canada is at 1%. Why?

Not sure why he had those positions other than being the person to hand out orts from his table so he could stay as the lord over everyone. Only problem is, we ran out of orts from our table and we can't steal, borrow or cheat from other tables any more.

Trump had no choice after covering for all those attrocious positions than to let him go early when he wanted to make himself the focal point of diplomacy in the International arena.

[burrrton]

I’ve made it clear that I support tax reform but not at the expense of blowing a 1.3 trillion dollar hole in the deficit . I’m all for immingration reform but not administered by a white nationalist David Duke supporting racist . I’m for deregulation but not the scott Pruitt style slash and burn every environmental protection at the behest of his climate change denier . I could go on but my point is clear .

I wonder if you know how thoroughly this belies your claims to "lifelong conservatism", and firmly backs up my TDS diagnosis.

Thanks.

My mind is crystal clear.

Uh huh.

[RiverDog]

Frankly, I think it was Mattis' inability to persuade the POTUS to change his decades old stance on not getting into never ending wars and leaving our troops stranded abroad. Trump has not changed on his position...

Oh, please! Trump has been all over the board on his foreign policy opinions over the course of the past decade. For example, he changed his position on Afghanistan multiple times over the past few years:

“Let’s get out of Afghanistan,” he wrote in January 2013. “Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”

Once a Republican candidate, however, Trump said the United States would likely have to stay in Afghanistan, but promised to end “nation-building” missions. "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place,” Trump told CNN in October 2015.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3668 ... fghanistan

Here's what we did under Trump a year ago last summer:

The Pentagon started sending about 3,000 additional troops to the country this summer (2017) – upping the number of U.S. forces to 14,000. The U.S. military will soon send thousands more advisers to aid their Afghan counterparts closer to the front lines, according to Gen. John Nicholson, the head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

And just in the past few weeks, there's this sudden change in position:

The Trump administration has ordered the military to start withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months, two defense officials said Thursday, an abrupt shift in the 17-year-old war there and a decision that stunned Afghan officials, who said they had not been briefed on the plans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/p ... rawal.html

Now I don't blame him for chaning his mind, but don't sit there and tell me how consistent he's been when the facts indicate the exact opposite. Additionally, as the last quote demonstrates, he's making these decisions haphazardly and without consulting anyone, ie by the seat of his pants.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="burrrton"][quote]

I wonder if you know how thoroughly this belies your claims to "lifelong conservatism", and firmly backs up my TDS diagnosis.

Thanks.

[quote]

Let me say it again real clear so you can understand . I AM a lifelong conservative straight ticket republican voter since 1978 when I was elegible to vote or maybe I should say I WAS.

I rejected the utter pos trump about 2 weeks into his candidacy and became more and more hardened against he and the deranged party that found him remotely acceptable .
Faux was all I watched. Rush was on the radio 5 days a week the last 25 years until the party of fiscal conservatism , social values, moral high ground, bedroom policeman and so on hitched itself to this utterly reprehensible piece of human excrement and then I walked away.

I’ve said it before and maybe it got lost in the crazy orange witch hyperbole but I give trump credit for one thing.

Well 2 actually . #1 he opened my eyes by personifying every negative chaticature the party has struggled to put behind . Racist , mysogynist , anti woman , greedy, party of the wealthy . I’m done with the fringe element in the right wing.

And I’ll give him credit for one other thing. He’s proved the utter greatness of America in that it hasnt utterly crashed and burned despite 2 years putting up with a lunatic pathalogical liar tweeting out misspelled lunacy 24-7.

You want to call that position deranged? More share my view than yours. You riip the guy and it’s just fine and I rip him harder and I’m deranged . It’s black and white to me. There’s more important things than the economy, markets , some god damn fence, whatever. I’m real comfortable having some integrity in my position on the absolutely worst most unfit dangerous man ever to hold the office .

Your more bipolar then I am .
You can’t have it both ways with trump
. He’s fit for office or he isn’t .

[idhawkman]

Oh, please! Trump has been all over the board on his foreign policy opinions over the course of the past decade. For example, he changed his position on Afghanistan multiple times over the past few years:

“Let’s get out of Afghanistan,” he wrote in January 2013. “Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”

Once a Republican candidate, however, Trump said the United States would likely have to stay in Afghanistan, but promised to end “nation-building” missions. "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place,” Trump told CNN in October 2015.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3668 ... fghanistan

Here's what we did under Trump a year ago last summer:

The Pentagon started sending about 3,000 additional troops to the country this summer (2017) – upping the number of U.S. forces to 14,000. The U.S. military will soon send thousands more advisers to aid their Afghan counterparts closer to the front lines, according to Gen. John Nicholson, the head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

And just in the past few weeks, there's this sudden change in position:

The Trump administration has ordered the military to start withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months, two defense officials said Thursday, an abrupt shift in the 17-year-old war there and a decision that stunned Afghan officials, who said they had not been briefed on the plans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/p ... rawal.html

Now I don't blame him for chaning his mind, but don't sit there and tell me how consistent he's been when the facts indicate the exact opposite. Additionally, as the last quote demonstrates, he's making these decisions haphazardly and without consulting anyone, ie by the seat of his pants.

Quit the contrary River. Trump told Mattis to give him an exit plan from Syria after taking back over 95% of what ISIS held over a year ago and gave him 6 months to come up with the plan. When Mattis told him he needed more time, Trump gave it to him. When Mattis still hadn't come up with the exit plan, Trump announced the withdrawal - why? Because Mattis is part of the military industrial mindset of the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.

He asked Mattis what he needed to exit Afghanistan (which is why he sent more troops - it was what Mattis told he needed to "win" in Afghanistan) but now he sees that Mattis has no plan to exit there either. So he's going to keep his word and exit it as promised.

NOTE: We save over $60B a year by getting out of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq (although Iraq is not designed to draw down ... YET!). Trump is not going to leave troops strewn throughout the world like past presidents have done. E.g. Germany and Japan after what, 73 years since the war was won? Korea after 65 years? What are we doing in those countries and why aren't they spending money to maintain their own militaries? I'll tell you why, because we are footing the bill for it. Germany is at 1.3% of their GDP for military because we have bases strewn throughout Germany. They are spending more and more on social programs - why? Because they don't have to pay for security. Duplicate this same arguement for Japan, Italy, Korea, etc. We simply can not afford this luxury anymore.

Again, as Mr. Wizard said to Tooter Turtle, "Drizzle Drazzle drizzle drome, time for this one to come home."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJIQ6MYJ1Q

[burrrton]

I rejected the utter pos trump about 2 weeks into his candidacy and became more and more hardened against he and the deranged party that found him remotely acceptable .

You also apparently rejected virtually every conservative position you ostensibly had held your entire life- that's either textbook TDS or you were never a "lifelong conservative".

I don't really care which it is, but it makes your thoughts on the matter tedious and predictable 'Orange Man Bad' babble, and it's over-the-top, thoughtless, reflexive crap like that that's going to get him re-elected (although I see that as less and less likely by the day).

[edit]

And by the way, I rejected him a long time before you did.

[burrrton]

We simply can not afford this luxury anymore.

A. It makes *us* safer as well as those countries.

B. Yes, we can (or could if we chose to).

Handing terrorists back their safe havens just so we can pat ourselves on the back for no longer being "the world's policeman" is self-defeating. I generally agree with the sentiment, but that horse left the barn a long time ago in places like Syria.

I think we're giving away all the gains we made and allowing the allies we've been working with and training to get *butchered*. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

[idhawkman]

A. It makes *us* safer as well as those countries.

B. Yes, we can (or could if we chose to).

Handing terrorists back their safe havens just so we can pat ourselves on the back for no longer being "the world's policeman" is self-defeating. I generally agree with the sentiment, but that horse left the barn a long time ago in places like Syria.

I think we're giving away all the gains we made and allowing the allies we've been working with and training to get *butchered*. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

I truly hope so too. I just think at some point people get tired of an occupying force whether they are there to help or hinder, it gets old and the spite turns. Many in the middle east still hold grudges from the crusades. I think we've done all we can, now they have to settle their squabbles in the region.

I got ridiculed on another post about Korea, Japan and others upset about our troops marrying (taking) their women but it is absolutely true. I've been there and witnessed the anomus toward us for such things. The middle east has been decimated and they are going to have to reproduce and build their population again. Even we in the U.S. are not keeping pace with birth rates to sustain our economy let alone take care of all us old people who are just starting to drain the coffers at a rapid rate. That $60B a year we spend over there would go a long way to shore up Social Security and Medicaid for us as we retire. Combine the numbers retiring with the mortality rate rising along with the low birth rate and what we saddle the workers in the US with is unbearable debt. There's a terrible storm on the horizon but it isn't necessarily coming from overseas - rather it is coming from within.

I also wanted to expand on another post I had about being strewn throughout the world. We have no idea where the next major hot spot is going to be. Is it in south/central America? Maybe Middle East? Russia? Europe or maybe even Africa. All of these continents are in turmoil. Let's say it is in Asia with China wanting to take over and building bases in the middle of the ocean and flexing their muscle in the South China Sea. Let's say we open up an all out war there. Wouldn't that be the perfect time for Korea, Iran, Russia or any other trouble spot to open up all out war, too? We can't fight 2 fronts anymore, we're broke. Therefore, we need to draw back and build and reinforce our ranks and technology so that when something arises, we can fight multiple fronts. Just this week, Russia succesfully tested a Super Sonic (20x the speed of sound) Intercontinental Balistic missle capable of bypassing our defenses and delivering a multiple warhead nuclear strike against us. Reports also show that China and Russia have out paced us in the war in Space. You might ask yourself, how could this happen and the simple answer is that they've been developing and deploying without having to spend their resources on skirmishes and fights all over the world. Its time we catch up while not breaking our bank which is at the bursting point now.

Edited: I meant to add this to the para above but got ahead of myself. We can't fight 2 fronts on our own and with Germany and other countries NOT spending the money on their own defense it shifts a huge burden to us that makes it impossible for us to defend both or even multiple fronts.

[burrrton]

I think this is a pretty good summary of my thoughts on the matter.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/ ... explained/

[idhawkman]

I see that article as setting up a straw man and then taking it down. Terrorist don't need a safe haven in Syria or any other "Broken" country. They can simply just fly to Mexico, Venezuela or Honduras and join a caravan through our southern border. There's vast open spaces in Arizona, Idaho or almost any state that they can setup a training camp that won't be discovered by our intel agencies. Why? Because the CIA, NSA and others can not operate in the US against "American Citizens". The FBI has that obligation but they are so fractured and broken because of the weaponization of the Obama admin of their agency that the entire SR. level staff has been fired or demoted or run out of the agency.

We will be hit from within. We need to bring our boys back to protect us here and let them solve their problems over there. If they start to reconstitute, send them a MOAB and call it a day. Beef up our space force, our foreign intel agencies and keep an eye on them that way. When needed, again, send them the gift of endearing rememberance of a MOAB.

[Hawktawk]

[edit]

And by the way, I rejected him a long time before you did.

Roflmao. You’re as full of it as the guy you rejected before I did but keep defending .

Country over party, country over ideology. If that’s too hard for you I can’t help you.

You’re a phony .is he fit for office or not ? It’s a yes or no question no personal ad hominem attacks needed. Just answer it.

[burrrton]

Country over party, country over ideology.

Wha? You're the one that rejects any positive steps for this country because Orange Man Bad™. I'm the one that lauds the positives and harshes on the negatives regardless of who's in the office.

Just own it.

You’re a phony .

This really hurts coming from the guy who did a 180 on his political views because Orange Man Bad.

is he fit for office or not ? It’s a yes or no question no personal ad hominem attacks needed. Just answer it.

I answered this a long time ago, you ditz- of course he's fit for office. Just because you lost your sh*t doesn't mean everyone else is unstable.

[edit]

Oh, my holiday mood has faded- bye.

[burrrton]

Terrorist don't need a safe haven in Syria or any other "Broken" country.

The article addresses this, and persuasively in my opinion. I'll see if I can find the relevant parts once I've had more coffee.

[Hawktawk]

I answered this a long time ago, you ditz- of course he's fit for office. Just because you lost your sh*t doesn't mean everyone else is unstable.

[edit]

Oh, my holiday mood has faded- bye.

I said no ad hominem personal attack needed but you just couldn't resist could you? You're as childish as the man you rejected who you keep defending if I don't criticize him in just the right way.
You're like a nagging ex wife.
The POTUS is the guy who has lost his $H#t and he proves it every day and you've lost yours if you think a guy like that is fit for office.

Oh and BTW internet tough guy as i've said repeatedly if you were sitting next to me in a bar you would likely find me to be an intelligent outgoing funny guy as my many many friends do. Not sure how Id react to you if your real personality is as nit picky as your anonymous internet one but you sure as hell wouldnt talk to me the way you do online. Nobody does.

Have a nice day Burrton, honestly. Take a chill pill and mellow out.
Someone needs to look at who they have become online and it isn't me.

[burrrton]

I think this is the salient point, ID:

"For all these reasons, at the very least American military strategy should be dedicated to denying terrorists safe havens. Keep terrorists on the run. Don’t grant them the opportunity to plan, recruit, and execute attacks in an atmosphere of peace and safety. When they have that opportunity, they can do terrible things. September 11 taught us that much."

I'm not going to debate it if you disagree, but as I said, I find that argument persuasive and rather self-evident.

[idhawkman]

I think this is the salient point, ID:

"For all these reasons, at the very least American military strategy should be dedicated to denying terrorists safe havens. Keep terrorists on the run. Don’t grant them the opportunity to plan, recruit, and execute attacks in an atmosphere of peace and safety. When they have that opportunity, they can do terrible things. September 11 taught us that much."

I'm not going to debate it if you disagree, but as I said, I find that argument persuasive and rather self-evident.

This is why I say they set up a straw man and then took it down. Here's why.

Their main argument is that they can't plan and recruit in "developed" nations like the U.S. or France, etc. The reason I say this is not relevant is that maybe in the past this was true but now with the open migrations and knowing that we allow 74 known terrorists through our southern border on a monthly basis according to DHS, the recruitment part is moot. They can recruit oversees and send them to the U.S. We have anywhere from 22 to 44 MILLION illegals here in the U.S. and with the people killing our cops the recruitment for law enforcement is way down. How can we take away training facilities in the US from them? Shoot, we had a couple of guys training kids in the desert to shoot up schools and didn't find them for years.

9/11 was a handful of terrorists. 74 on average per month and that's the ones we know about. I will hate being the guy that says, "I told you so" when the day comes but make no mistake, the day IS coming and we'll have no one but ourselves to blame. We need our troops home and we need to invest that money in shoring up the home front.

[burrrton]

I will hate being the guy that says, "I told you so" when the day comes but make no mistake, the day IS coming and we'll have no one but ourselves to blame. We need our troops home

I hope you're right, but I think you're begging the question a bit. Whatever you think of us having troops in those sh*tholes, the last 15 years seems to be a pretty solid argument against your contention that we need them home or risk another big hit.

In the immediate aftermath of 911, with all the seeming complexity of the plan, etc, if someone would have told us we wouldn't have another major hit for at least 17 years, we'd have thought they were nuts.

Again, we can agree to disagree, but I know some pretty solid military minds who think they're a useful presence, even if only in non-combat roles.

[idhawkman]

I hope you're right, but I think you're begging the question a bit. Whatever you think of us having troops in those sh*tholes, the last 15 years seems to be a pretty solid argument against your contention that we need them home or risk another big hit.

In the immediate aftermath of 911, with all the seeming complexity of the plan, etc, if someone would have told us we wouldn't have another major hit for at least 17 years, we'd have thought they were nuts.

Again, we can agree to disagree, but I know some pretty solid military minds who think they're a useful presence, even if only in non-combat roles.

I think you are conflating two different points.

1. Presence in Syria

2. Open borders and presence in the U.S.

The first is not a concern anymore to me. Planning and training from caves is not as easy as the media makes it out to be. Recruiting isn't so easy either. Back in 9/11 days they didn't say leave your home and come live in a cave and then get bombed back into the stone age. They said kill the infedel, and if by chance you die in the battle you'll get virgins waiting for you. By the way, we have all these cities that we own and can go from one to the next.

The second is much much scarier. We can see when they poke their heads out of the caves in Syria and Afghanistan but we can't find nor do we know how many illegals we have in the US now. How are we going to find the plotters against us? They can literally be in the house next to yours. Then when we find them, they are most likely in an Amnesty city and we can't deport them.

In 9/11 we didn't have the insane laws and judicial hand cuffs on our border enforcement that we have today. Back then we didn't have the insane catch and release, claim asylum and not come back for your court date, I have a kid with me (Never mind it isn't actually my kid but rather I plan to traffick this little b@tch when I get let in) so you have to let me in. We are literally swinging in the breeze here and the dems are vacationing in hawaii without a care in the world. Its ridiculous.

[idhawkman]

Oh yeah one more thing.

9/11 perps were recruited in a "Modern" country and the attack was planned in a modern country. They escaped to the caves but it wasn't planned, recruited and executed from outside of modern countries.

[Aseahawkfan]

After doing some research here's the data to back up your suspicion on Mattis' being a old schooler.

1. He did NOT want Trump to withdraw from the Paris Accord on Climate Change.

2. He did NOT want the embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem.

3. He did NOT want Trump to withdraw from the Iran agreement.

4. He was given 6 months to withdraw from Syria and then Trump extended it another 6 months after which Trump announced it and forced his hand.

5. Did not agree with Trump that NATO allies should pay their fair share of the NATO budget. e.g. Germany is only at 1.3% of GDP and Canada is at 1%. Why?

Not sure why he had those positions other than being the person to hand out orts from his table so he could stay as the lord over everyone. Only problem is, we ran out of orts from our table and we can't steal, borrow or cheat from other tables any more.

Trump had no choice after covering for all those attrocious positions than to let him go early when he wanted to make himself the focal point of diplomacy in the International arena.

Doesn't surprise me. Mattis is an old school Marine that made his bones as part of the machine that has kept American as the world's police and in a state of near constant warfare. I'm tired of Americans dying to prop up tyrants. American soldiers should not enrich business and foreign powers, but be used only for our defense. Bring them home Trump and don't send them abroad for scumbags.

[Aseahawkfan]

A. It makes *us* safer as well as those countries.

B. Yes, we can (or could if we chose to).

Handing terrorists back their safe havens just so we can pat ourselves on the back for no longer being "the world's policeman" is self-defeating. I generally agree with the sentiment, but that horse left the barn a long time ago in places like Syria.

I think we're giving away all the gains we made and allowing the allies we've been working with and training to get *butchered*. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

What safehwavens do they lack? This is more unprovable trash. It's like saying, "If we do this, maybe it will help."

Examples of this policy utterly failed:

1. Iraq: Never had any terrorists to begin with. Was not unstable and not friendly to terrorists.

2. Syria: Did not have problems until Saudi Arabian funded militants funded rebellion against the Assad Shiite government.

3. Saudi Arabia: A long-term ally with supposedly good relations with America. 15 of 19 Saudis carried out 9/11. Masterminded by a Saudi Arabian located in Afghanistan by a Saudi supported Taliban that we helped train and empower to take the nation.

4. Pakistan: Osama Bin Laden found in an ally nation in the heart of a nation we had to carry out an operation not involving said ally to kill.

You want more countless examples of the failed policy you just listed? You want a much, much, much longer list? Whatever military experts you're talking to are ignoring the facts of the situation as are you, which is typical. You aren't near as educated or honest about your viewpoint as you attempt to portray. In fact, you are quite dishonest or ignorant.

The biggest attacks on our nation were carried out by nations we were involved with. The terrorists were hiding under our noses. Our involvement in their nations only further motivates their desire to attack us, same as if those nations occupied America and supported dictators and scum in our nation we would want to attack them. Or do you think you would be ok with a foreign power interfering in your nation as we do in far too many supporting leaders that mistreat and oppress their people?

Like I said, you're one of those conservatives that needs to be driven out of the party as much as possible. You're a warmonger buying into corrupt philosophies where the evidence against your stance is abundant. You are wrong. Ignore the evidence all you like, but it's right there in the history books for anyone paying attention. We are doing nothing to stop the terrorists in foreign nations. There will just be more the more we support dictators in those nations preventing the Middle East from self-government.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh yeah one more thing.

9/11 perps were recruited in a "Modern" country and the attack was planned in a modern country. They escaped to the caves but it wasn't planned, recruited and executed from outside of modern countries.

At least now there is hope you'll see the truth. The warmongering in the Middle East has been ineffective at best and highly corrupt at worst. Supporting dictators in foreign nations and preventing self-government by the people of that area is a path to failure and constant conflict in that region of the world. Our military doesn't belong there. We shouldn't be picking sides between scumbags to the detriment of their people.

Burrton's military sources are probably some conservative "think tank" reading crap that wants to continue the warmongering worldwide even if it is completely against our values. He does not care if our soldiers kill people as an act of oppression in support of a dictator, while at the same time claiming we are not ruthless because "we're not Hitler." It's a stupid argument.

We literally just allowed an American to be killed by a foreign power, tortured and murdered by Saudi Arabia, a supposed ally, for oil. Yet burrton would still claim we're not ruthless because we're not taking people over. It's stupid. You don't have to be some conquering Russia or German to be ruthless and be attempting to control the world from afar. That's what we're up to and no longer need to be doing as a nation. Our Constitution was not created to support some warmongering, world controlling government.

I hope Trump continues to keep us out of wars and pulls our troops from places they don't need to be. Our people dying on foreign soil in support of tyrants under the guise of fighting terrorism is one of the biggest scams we've been sold on to keep the war machine going.

I promise you this ID. As much as I don't care for Trump, if he keeps us out of war and brings our troops home from tyrant nations, I will vote for him next election. I don't care how much the left or people like Hawktawk hate this guy, if he's keeping us out of war and trash military policing, he's protecting Americans. I will support that wholeheartedly. I haven't seen a president stand against the warmongers in my lifetime. It would truly be a first.

[The True Prophet]

The Prior 3 posts by aseahawkfan are right on the Money.

HE would agree with what aseahawkfan wrote here.

&

HE will be returning....................Soon

[RiverDog]

HE will be returning....................Soon

If you want to join our community, then great, welcome aboard. But I, for one, am getting a little tired of your self aggrandizing.

[burrrton]

9/11 perps were recruited in a "Modern" country and the attack was planned in a modern country. They escaped to the caves but it wasn't planned, recruited and executed from outside of modern countries.

Wha? Nobody cares from where they were "recruited" (that could happen on the Yale campus, for heaven's sake), and they trained and planned 9/11 in Afghanistan, almost exclusively.

[burrrton]

If you want to join our community, then great, welcome aboard. But I, for one, am getting a little tired of your self aggrandizing.

Yeah, dude, I thought it was a cute announcement of someone's return at first- now it's spam. I'll un-mute you if I see you contributing down the road.

[burrrton]

What safehwavens do they lack?

Until we pull out, Syria, or really, anywhere our military decides they lack them.

That's the point.