Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[The Conservative]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Diplomacy, what's that ?


Trump said Diplomacy was going to be used more often in foreign policy. So, let's see what happens. I'll have to read the Strategery, I just hope they have clear, achievable goals.

Well uh, Trump is making massive cuts in the State Departments budget, so let's see. Plus a lot of positions are still left vacant there (starting from Tillerson's deputy. So I don't know how

Anyway, I assume that here the idea is that the US military will work with other countries and have a far more realpolitik attitude towards the whole thing. For instance, in Yemen basically you have Al Qaeda now fighting alongside the US backed coalition against the Houthis (which likely will stop if the Houthis are defeated).

In Syria the situation is even more complex with 3 different sides to the fighting. Or even more sides, if you look at the situation.

Diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. - Winston Churchill

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

This isn't what I signed up for.

Perhaps you had to take a piss everytime Trump spoke about destroying ISIS.

[Speaker to Animals]

This isn't what I signed up for.

Perhaps you had to take a piss everytime Trump spoke about destroying ISIS.

Maybe he should join the Cucks United Never Trump party.

[SuburbanFarmer]

This isn't what I signed up for.

I agreed to a Russo-Americana Pax and an America 1st foreign policy. None of that is being implemented at the moment and I am not cool with that.

What on Earth is Russo-Americana Pax you are talking about? ? ?



What did you think you would be signing up for?

What's the policy you think it would be? Bug out from the Middle East and leave it to Al Qaeda and Iran? Appease Russia for nothing? (Or getting assistance on beating Hillary or what?)

If you are so afraid of ISIS, you think then bugging out form the Middle East will be the answer? Perhaps it would be, actually. Stop being a Superpower. If you do it voluntarily, you would be the first country ever in the history of mankind to do that voluntarily.

You could be the next Canada: an important Trading partner, but otherwise who care a damn what Canadians say on the global arena.

The implications were that we would be partnering with Russia in Syria - ie: Letting them bomb the fuck out of ISIS, and pulling our troops out.

It's hard to say that Trump lied about anything though, as he changed his rhetoric to suit whatever spilled out of his asshole that morning.

[SuburbanFarmer]

155mm's--Long Tom's, they used to call them--dumb bombs, I call them now. I like dumb bombs. They're cheap--compared to our Hellfire from above--and they don't discriminate--those better-than-six-inch shells can't tell a mosque from a falafel stand--I like that, too.
B-52's and B-1's in South Korea--fine with me.
Obama's the only president to spend every day at war for an entire two terms in office--remember him?--the guy who won the Nobel peace prize? How great would it be if we were fighting alongside the Russians rather than supplying their enemies? Assad ain't never done shit to me.

...except for all of the shit that were supposed to be outraged at ISIS over.

Should be a good time counting up dead civilians though. Go war!

You know that the Syrian government and ISIS are two different entities, right? Another thing you may not have noticed, millions of Syrians refugees have split the scene, so they shouldn't be too thick on the ground. And I agree with Trump: if we want to help Syrian refugees, it's best we do so there--set up refugee camps THERE--women and children first--they know whom to flee to and whom to flee from.

So.... remember all that barking from our beloved forum, telling them to 'stick it out' and 'fix their own country', instead of 'invading the West'? Now we're going to bomb the fuck out of those very few that actually did so. Winning.

[ssu]

Not cool, if Flynn was in....

The absolute mess would continue with a person that has personal issues with the organizations he would have to work with.

Besides, if Trump fires the guy after so few days, doesn't that tell anything to you? No?

[C-Mag]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Diplomacy, what's that ?


Trump said Diplomacy was going to be used more often in foreign policy. So, let's see what happens. I'll have to read the Strategery, I just hope they have clear, achievable goals.

Well uh, Trump is making massive cuts in the State Departments budget, so let's see. Plus a lot of positions are still left vacant there (starting from Tillerson's deputy. So I don't know how

Anyway, I assume that here the idea is that the US military will work with other countries and have a far more realpolitik attitude towards the whole thing. For instance, in Yemen basically you have Al Qaeda now fighting alongside the US backed coalition against the Houthis (which likely will stop if the Houthis are defeated).

In Syria the situation is even more complex with 3 different sides to the fighting. Or even more sides, if you look at the situation.

Budget + Personnel ≠ Performance on the ground.

I dont' know if you've ever worked with the State Department, but I have on a limited basis. Frankly, from my point of view, I would have been better off without them. The State Department could use plenty of trimming. The problem with the State Department in Theater is that you have these bureaucrats going on assignment to pad their resume and get achievements on their record. They are there for short durations and show little concern about what is really being done. They are not fooling locals, and they often make things worse.

I'm very hesitant with expanding our footprint in the ME, in any way. I'd rather let the fools burn it down themselves. Was it Mattis or McMaster that said of the ME, don't jump in the middle of a 5 sided fight. Pretty much what the ME is. However, I truly believe that moving swiftly away from Regime Change and Nation Building is a positive step forward. It was something Trump touched on in his speeches and because of all the panting and frothing at the mouth of the press few really heard the message.

[ssu]

The implications were that we would be partnering with Russia in Syria - ie: Letting them bomb the fuck out of ISIS, and pulling our troops out.

It's hard to say that Trump lied about anything though, as he changed his rhetoric to suit whatever spilled out of his asshole that morning.

But they weren't and aren't interested in bomb the fuck out of ISIS. They just say that to please you, but the actions tell something different. They are interested in bombing those that the US assisted earlier, or Turkey, or the allies of the US. Those are the most important target to the Assad regime and the Iranians. They don't give a rats ass about Americans panicking about ISIS. International terrorism is on Place 17. or something on the threat list to them. (No. 1 is the enlargement of NATO, and NATO in general, btw.)

You see there ought to be some mutual benefit, especially benefit for Russia to work with the US. Now they have "worked with" you, because to a) defend Assad's regime and Iran, which is on their team. And Russia wants to sideline the US and has been doing it successfully with the the peacetalks it started with Turkey and Syria (and Iran) without anything to do with the US. Yes, you can come to their table, but it's not your game. Russia is already increasing it's influence in the region. Netanyahu is actively going to Moscow to meet his new neighbours.

And Trump is dead against Iran. Do you think that Russia will change it's relationship with Iran because some Trump would want that? Not a chance in hell.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The implications were that we would be partnering with Russia in Syria - ie: Letting them bomb the fuck out of ISIS, and pulling our troops out.

It's hard to say that Trump lied about anything though, as he changed his rhetoric to suit whatever spilled out of his asshole that morning.

But they weren't and aren't interested in bomb the fuck out of ISIS. They just say that to please you, but the actions tell something different. They are interested in bombing those that the US assisted earlier, or Turkey, or the allies of the US. Those are the most important target to the Assad regime and the Iranians. They don't give a rats ass about Americans panicking about ISIS. International terrorism is on Place 17. or something on the threat list to them. (No. 1 is the enlargement of NATO, and NATO in general, btw.)

You see there ought to be some mutual benefit, especially benefit for Russia to work with the US. Now they have "worked with" you, because to a) defend Assad's regime and Iran, which is on their team. And Russia wants to sideline the US and has been doing it successfully with the the peacetalks it started with Turkey and Syria (and Iran) without anything to do with the US. Yes, you can come to their table, but it's not your game. Russia is already increasing it's influence in the region. Netanyahu is actively going to Moscow to meet his new neighbours.

And Trump is dead against Iran. Do you think that Russia will change it's relationship with Iran because some Trump would want that? Not a chance in hell.

I see no reason to care how much influence Russia has with the Middle East. At all.

I certainly give no fucks about our "allies" in the region, or how cozy Russia suddenly becomes with Israel.

Terrorism SHOULD be on place 17 in our priority list. It's held at number 1 though, as a useful distraction, and booster shot for MIC funding.

[The Conservative]

The implications were that we would be partnering with Russia in Syria - ie: Letting them bomb the fuck out of ISIS, and pulling our troops out.

It's hard to say that Trump lied about anything though, as he changed his rhetoric to suit whatever spilled out of his asshole that morning.

But they weren't and aren't interested in bomb the fuck out of ISIS. They just say that to please you, but the actions tell something different. They are interested in bombing those that the US assisted earlier, or Turkey, or the allies of the US. Those are the most important target to the Assad regime and the Iranians. They don't give a rats ass about Americans panicking about ISIS. International terrorism is on Place 17. or something on the threat list to them. (No. 1 is the enlargement of NATO, and NATO in general, btw.)

You see there ought to be some mutual benefit, especially benefit for Russia to work with the US. Now they have "worked with" you, because to a) defend Assad's regime and Iran, which is on their team. And Russia wants to sideline the US and has been doing it successfully with the the peacetalks it started with Turkey and Syria (and Iran) without anything to do with the US. Yes, you can come to their table, but it's not your game. Russia is already increasing it's influence in the region. Netanyahu is actively going to Moscow to meet his new neighbours.

And Trump is dead against Iran. Do you think that Russia will change it's relationship with Iran because some Trump would want that? Not a chance in hell.

I see no reason to care how much influence Russia has with the Middle East. At all.

I certainly give no fucks about our "allies" in the region, or how cozy Russia suddenly becomes with Israel.

Terrorism SHOULD be on place 17 in our priority list. It's held at number 1 though, as a useful distraction, and booster shot for MIC funding.

Last time they went through the Middle East, they got their asses handed to them... if they want to spend money they don't have, it's fine by me.