Jump to content

Trump foreign policy


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, meazza said:

U.S. Carried Out ‘Show of Force’ After Close Encounter With Turkish-Backed Fighters: Report

 

I'm curious what the orange man's reaction would have been had another president been responsible for this. 

 

The one thing 45 has shown, more than almost any other aspect of his time in office to date, is that he'll support the men and women in danger/combat/active service. And they love him for it. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The one thing 45 has shown, more than almost any other aspect of his time in office to date, is that he'll support the men and women in danger/combat/active service. And they love him for it. 


Unless they get captured.

 

Honestly can’t believe you buy that bull####. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, meazza said:


Unless they get captured.

 

Honestly can’t believe you buy that bull####. 

 

I buy it because that's what I'm told, constantly, by active duty members. It's also backed up by facts. The previous administration's policy was to leave the men and women on the ground exposed -- to both enemy fire and litigation from their own country. The ROE's enforced on the soldiers turned them into lawyers on the battlefield rather than what they're trained/supposed to be doing. That cost lives. Worse, the previous (several) administrations left the military vastly unprepared for the two decades worth of endless war we've asked them to perform. 

 

This administration's policies put the soldiers lives first, and they love him for it. It's not a controversial idea, it's just a fact. What happened in terms of the show of force is 100% in line with that policy/philosophy. Turkey endangered our pilots -- so a (non lethal) message was sent to deter that from repeating.  

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44’s policy wasn’t to stop it. It was to exacerbate it by partnering w AQ, and illegally arming, funding, and training our enemies. 

 

44 didn’t want to end the war in Syria. He sparked it and wanted it to grow into a tinderbox which would keep our forces in the region for another 10 years w no hope of completing their “mission”. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

44’s policy wasn’t to stop it. It was to exacerbate it by partnering w AQ, and illegally arming, funding, and training our enemies. 

 

44 didn’t want to end the war in Syria. He sparked it and wanted it to grow into a tinderbox which would keep our forces in the region for another 10 years w no hope of completing their “mission”. 

Barry didn't have a policy. He was carrying out his masters policy. Obviously I don't have to tell you that. If it were up to Barry, Hillary and their bosses, we would be at war on multiple fronts. N.Korea, Russia and the mid east. Thank Christ we have someone sane/not fugging evil, in the White House to at least hold off some of the lunacy. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I buy it because that's what I'm told, constantly, by active duty members. It's also backed up by facts. The previous administration's policy was to leave the men and women on the ground exposed -- to both enemy fire and litigation from their own country. The ROE's enforced on the soldiers turned them into lawyers on the battlefield rather than what they're trained/supposed to be doing. That cost lives. Worse, the previous (several) administrations left the military vastly unprepared for the two decades worth of endless war we've asked them to perform. 

 

This administration's policies put the soldiers lives first, and they love him for it. It's not a controversial idea, it's just a fact. What happened in terms of the show of force is 100% in line with that policy/philosophy. Turkey endangered our pilots -- so a (non lethal) message was sent to deter that from repeating.  

...as I await my new book, "Military Spending For Dummies" from Barnes & Noble, why is it the Dems consistently gut military spending and opt for the bullies' "world apology tour" whereas the GOP restores/increases military spending? .....what are the perceived negatives of being a superpower versus a limp wrist?....I missed the memo....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...