@metal-brain saidAlleged billionaires are also subject to campaign finance regulations.
A billionaire using campaign money instead of his own?
LOL!
1 edit
@metal-brain saidGeneral 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 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.
Trump is a loose cannon.
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46407999
What legal troubles?
Wake up and smell the covfefe.
@moonbus saidThe 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".
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.
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instructed the military to start planning a process for 7,000 US troops (about half the number deployed there) to be withdrawn from Afghanistan.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.
-Removed-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?
@kazetnagorra saidSure. I will say this, if he really did use campaign money he is beyond stupid.
Alleged billionaires are also subject to campaign finance regulations.
I would not count on him being that careless. It would be like a millionaire duct taping his shoe to save money.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidRemoving 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 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.
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.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@moonbus saidThe 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.
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.
@moonbus saidIf that happens, it happens.
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.
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.
@shallow-blue saidI 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.
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.
@metal-brain saidMoney used to help someone win an election is campaign money whatever the source.
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.
@no1marauder saidThe 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?
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.
Someone once said that getting into a war is easy; getting out is hard.
@no1marauder saidNope.
Money used to help someone win an election is campaign money whatever the source.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/[WORD TOO LONG]