Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    21 Dec '18 12:17
    @metal-brain said
    A billionaire using campaign money instead of his own?
    LOL!
    Alleged billionaires are also subject to campaign finance regulations.
  2. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    21 Dec '18 12:351 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Trump disagreed with them because all of their solutions were with bombs and bullets. It would have been better if DJT realized it sooner, but better late than never.
    Bringing more troops home is a good thing. Screw Lindsay Graham.
    General Mattis is a sane man with long experience of maintaining military and diplomatic alliances. It is a sign of serious weakness in a president when people of such caliber jump ship in the middle of a war on several fronts.

    Trump is a loose cannon.
  3. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    21 Dec '18 13:00
    @metal-brain said
    What legal troubles?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46407999

    Wake up and smell the covfefe.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10113
    21 Dec '18 13:33
    What we need is Hillary in there to start her "no fly zone" in Syria.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Dec '18 14:28
    @moonbus said
    General Mattis is a sane man with long experience of maintaining military and diplomatic alliances. It is a sign of serious weakness in a president when people of such caliber jump ship in the middle of a war on several fronts.

    Trump is a loose cannon.
    The stated reason for the US to send troops to Syria in the first place was to defeat IS. Now that IS has been reduced to a small conclave, we are told that troops must remain for other geopolitical reasons like "containing" Russian, Turkish and Iranian "influence".

    Enough is enough; this full blown mission creep is threatening to trigger a far wider war. Hate it if you want, but Trump's decision is correct and Mattis' position is wrong.

    Trump also appears to have instructed the military to start planning a process for 7,000 US troops (about half the number deployed there) to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/afghanistan-withdrawal/index.html

    Apparently to do so after the US has been occupying the country for more than 18 years is a little too "hasty" for the generals and hawks like Lindsay Graham. My take: a 100% withdrawal would be better but I'll take the 50% one as a step in the right direction - out of another country's internal affairs.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    21 Dec '18 17:00
    @divegeester said
    As I understand it that General was one of the last voices of reason close to Trump who as we all know is a megalomaniac. Not a good situation.

    As for occupations, America and other militaries should keep out of people’s countries unless there is a collective legal agreement to go in. However once you are in there you have a responsibility to not pull out too early. Preventing terror is not like the withdrawal method of birth control!
    You have been brainwashed into accepting an occupation default. You say we should not invade other countries, but you condone it when it happens and take the default "hold em and occupy" once it does. The US gets international support for wars by economic threats and incentives. That seems to be what determines your support for invasions, a rigged game.
    Do you support installing puppet governments as well? Is that another way to fight terrorism you support?
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    21 Dec '18 17:05
    @kazetnagorra said
    Alleged billionaires are also subject to campaign finance regulations.
    Sure. I will say this, if he really did use campaign money he is beyond stupid.
    I would not count on him being that careless. It would be like a millionaire duct taping his shoe to save money.
  8. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    21 Dec '18 19:001 edit
    @no1marauder said
    The stated reason for the US to send troops to Syria in the first place was to defeat IS. Now that IS has been reduced to a small conclave, we are told that troops must remain for other geopolitical reasons like "containing" Russian, Turkish and Iranian "influence".

    Enough is enough; this full blown mission creep is threatening to trigger a far wider war. Hate it if y ...[text shortened]... I'll take the 50% one as a step in the right direction - out of another country's internal affairs.
    Removing troops unilaterally from the Syrian anti-IS coalition force is a bad idea. Such decisions should be taken in consultation with one’s allies.

    Regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban control 50% of the territory and show no sign of weakness. On the contrary, if the US were to withdraw, the Afghan forces would be overrun by the Taliban in a matter of months. That mission is not only not complete, it’s moving retrograde.
  9. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7441
    21 Dec '18 19:10
    @whodey said
    What we need is Hillary in there to start her "no fly zone" in Syria.
    She's married already, whodey. Get over her.
  10. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7441
    21 Dec '18 19:18
    @moonbus said
    Removing troops unilaterally from the Syrian anti-IS coalition force is a bad idea. Such decisions should be taken in consultation with one’s allies.
    The USA have a habit like that: invade a country on flimsy (sometimes even completely and knowingly spurious) pretenses, against the advice of most countries and without the slightest contingency plans; badger a few allies into cooperating, usually including locals they set up to take the fall; and then withdraw either when things get too scary or when there's no more money to be extracted, leaving the invaded country in ruins and the local civilians to pick up the bill. It's disgusting and cowardly.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Dec '18 19:28
    @moonbus said
    Removing troops unilaterally from the Syrian anti-IS coalition force is a bad idea. Such decisions should be taken in consultation with one’s allies.

    Regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban control 50% of the territory and show no sign of weakness. On the contrary, if the US were to withdraw, the Afghan forces would be overrun by the Taliban in a matter of months. That mission is not only not complete, it’s moving retrograde.
    If that happens, it happens.

    The idea that the US has to permanently occupy a country to prevent the inevitable outcome of a country's internal power struggles is insane.
  12. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    21 Dec '18 19:29
    @shallow-blue said
    The USA have a habit like that: invade a country on flimsy (sometimes even completely and knowingly spurious) pretenses, against the advice of most countries and without the slightest contingency plans; badger a few allies into cooperating, usually including locals they set up to take the fall; and then withdraw either when things get too scary or when there's no more mo ...[text shortened]... invaded country in ruins and the local civilians to pick up the bill. It's disgusting and cowardly.
    I agree that invading Iraq was stupid. If George W Bush had not invaded Iraq, the world would not be confronting IS now in Iraq and Syria. IS filled the power vacuum created when the US toppled Saddam. Before toppling a dictator, make sure that what follows is not worse. IS is worse. IS is like a malignant tumor; if not completely eradicated, it will come back.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    21 Dec '18 19:40
    @metal-brain said
    Sure. I will say this, if he really did use campaign money he is beyond stupid.
    I would not count on him being that careless. It would be like a millionaire duct taping his shoe to save money.
    Money used to help someone win an election is campaign money whatever the source.
  14. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    21 Dec '18 19:52
    @no1marauder said
    If that happens, it happens.

    The idea that the US has to permanently occupy a country to prevent the inevitable outcome of a country's internal power struggles is insane.
    The Afghan campaign was a war of choice, not national survival. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to punish someone for 9/11. At some point more US personnel will have died in Afghanistan than civilians died in the WTC. Some ‘punishment’, eh?

    Someone once said that getting into a war is easy; getting out is hard.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14798
    21 Dec '18 20:24
    @no1marauder said
    Money used to help someone win an election is campaign money whatever the source.
    Nope.

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/attorney-alan-dershowitz-paying-hush-money-women-election-not-crime?fbclid=IwAR2ifQSPyOnVpY_qYNY2IZ1nLJB2ov-Xm-SQ00jADVypZ3fMSVNKx32MQCE
Back to Top