Posted on 09/26/2015 4:34:57 AM PDT by McGruff
Why do people have to be so nasty when they read something that another person writes that doesn’t agree with them?
Do they think by being that way they are going to ‘bully’ them into their way of thinking? Or do they really believe that what they say is going to change that person’s beliefs?
I don’t care who you are, what you are, I wrote my opinion which is MY opinion, and I wasn’t nasty about it, and here you are, thinking you are so important and above all the rest of us on here that your nasty, immature response is going to change something, well it did, it shows that you are about a third grade level of thinking..
It’s not hard to understand: his policy is to keep the military out of a conflict that doesnt threaten the United States.
The ‘USSR’ didn’t do too well against Afghanistan.
Russia is doing quite well, thank you.
The Turks are flying under the radar here about their murky role in supporting the US Saudi Arabia, ISIS and al Qaeda ( aka the coalition) in this mess, and what they hope to achieve
I am reading that Erdogan is starting to rule more like Bashir Al Assad than is Bashir Al Assad
“We don’t have to fight a war all the time in the world..right now we have a fight to get America back on her feet”
Excellent. You and Trump are correctly re-thinking the neoconservatism we have been taught for a few decades now.
“One that is likely to cost far more than we can afford, both in terms of treasure and blood.”
Unlike the focused, frugal, efficient and successful foreign policy run by the polished geopolitical professionals of the Bush and Obama administrations? Give me a break. When GW Bush ran for President he said he was firmly against nation building but once he got a chance, that is all he did for most of his term. Guess what? It didn’t work just like he said it would not when he was a candidate. I think many republicans (Jeb, Rubio, Fiorina) would probably engage in the same sort of foolishness. Obama is just a disaster of epic proportions in every area of foreign policy. I don’t know that Trump could do worse than either one of them if he tried.
Trump is right, of course.
Those who disagree with him can form a militia and go fight for Syria themselves.
There is nothing to be gained in this war.
No candidate has a solid plan, and they can notr form one till they are in office. Tgheir plan only gets formed AFTER study and options forwarded by the advisors and management team they put together once they are in office.
0bama;s team consists of unqualified, affirmative action activists with no experience in their appointed positions. The results of this “leadership” style is demonstrated quite vividly in the total destabilization of international economic and military situation.
A candidate that knows exactly what he will do once he is in office is an ignorant fool and a disaster waiting to happen.
Hire (elect) a leader that knows how to put together a competent team.
Again, maybe you're stating the inevitable destination of Trump's "policies" more coherently than Trump has. Or, maybe you're just projecting your fond wishes on the candidate, as supporters are so often wont to do.
But in any case, you should realize that Trump always plays both sides of every fence. He's already made other comments in this campaign that are as bellicose and interventionist as anyone, and then some.
I seem to remember some weeks ago it was something along the lines of “knock the hell out of them” and then “take the oil,” as an example. I'm pretty sure he was talkng about Iran.
You ready for the U.S. to go do that? I'm just curious.
You can't have it both ways.
How about saving the Christian minorities of Syria and Iraq?
How about putting the USA and our interest first for once?
The U.S. didn’t do too well in Afghanistan either. Russia fought the Nazis too -
“knock the hell out of them” and then “take the oil,”
IIRC, he was talking about Iraq because ISIS has taken over some of the oil fields in Iraq and that is where much of there funding comes from.
No doubt that Obama is a disaster, on a global, biblical scale.
And you’re certainly right that no candidate is going to be able to posit a complete plan for every contingency, lacking as they are the incredible, vast resources of the U.S. government.
What I do expect to hear from them are general principles upon which their actions as Commander-in-Chief will be guided. Gerneral principles that before anything else have a moral basis.
Not a whiff of that from Trump.
Remember when we slaughtered 3000 Europeans in Serbia to save muslims? Undoing some of that bad karma would be in our interests.
“I’m pretty sure he was talkng about Iran.”
He was talking about Iraq.
Iraq is a failed state and someone will take their oil. It would not be wise to let it fall into the hands of Isis or Iran.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trumps-iran-plan-knock-the-hell-out-of-them-take-the-oil/
Donald Trump finally laid out his plan for dealing with Iran (or ISIS?) on Fox & Friends Tuesday, recommending that the United States “knock the hell out of them” and then “take the oil.”
Host Steve Doocy asked Trump about his plans to deal with ISIS. But whether he was confused or misspoke, Trump started talking about Iran. “Iran is taking over Iraq 100%, just like I predicted years ago,” he said. “I say this, I didn’t want to go there in the first place. Now we take the oil.”
“We should have kept the oil,” Trump continued. “Now we go in, we knock the hell out of them, take the oil, we thereby take their wealth. They have so much money.”
“They have better internet connections than we do in the United States,” he complained. “They’re training our kids through the internet. We have to knock out their wealth.”
I don’t believe in the pagan concept of karma and I was against that Clinton war
Other than Carly blustering about ignoring Putin while she builds up the US military, no one has laid out a strategy any more coherent than obama’s
But I have to say anyone who thinks any of what is happening or has happened is about “ morality” is so 1980’s
I used to believe we used our military power for moral causes but not any more
At this point I will look for the man who is realistic about what tools of diplomacy we use, how when, and where ( including our military and economic might) and to define our national interests
If actions by Russia or China serve our national interests then huzzah and let them handle it
The liberals have long wanted a multi polar world and by God and by fraud, they brought it to the world
So let's figure out how to make it work for us
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.