Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 In a strange twist. We actually have Hillary morally representing the position that FDR took. Is Trump the "Father Conklin" who got elected? (Yes, I know he couldn't really get elected... Thank God he was Canadian born) Sorry there was no better choice. But there was a better choice. Playing w/fire if anybody thinks that our systemn is strong enough to handle, correct things? Have we finally caught "lightening in a bottle" w/populist Trump. :-( Gut tells me we are on wrong side of history. I hope to schit I am wrong... I will gleefully endure any attack in coming years if I am! Trump is already manipulating media and turning it back on them (Twitter)... See my comment above (how Conklin used Radio). The only saving grace was the establishment wrestled radio away from him (Conklin). Who's gonna wrestle Twitter away when the evil is behind the tiller? The Parks Service? Yikes! Well, to take it another step, if Trump's economic "policies" ruin the economy we might get a Huey Long running. I did not know Conklin was Canadian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Obama started a war? You are an idiot Libya says hello, if that's not on Obama I'm not sure who you put it on. For those keeping score, during 44's tenure we bombed 7 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. Under 43 we bombed 4 countries. 44 dropped 26k+ bombs in 2016 alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 White House says Mexico border wall might be funded by tax on imports https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexican-president-cancels-visit-to-washington-as-tensions-with-trump-administration-intensify/2017/01/26/ececc3da-e3d9-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1485463353&tid=notifi_push_brea&utm_term=.db5e185bc86d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Libya says hello, if that's not on Obama I'm not sure who you put it on. For those keeping score, during 44's tenure we bombed 7 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. Under 43 we bombed 4 countries. 44 dropped 26k+ bombs in 2016 alone. Oh, I forgot about that "war." I wonder why I forgot... Iraq, as if I need to explain this, was in a class by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well, to take it another step, if Trump's economic "policies" ruin the economy we might get a Huey Long running. I did not know Conklin was Canadian! Yeah... We finally caught "lightening in a bottle" this time w/The Basket of Deplorables, populist and rascist losers. I am not saying we all don't have it in us, just gotta fight to keep the internal moral compass calibrated correctly. Hate is a powerful emotion, it gets the best of many good intentioned men, even my simple, naive self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Here's what's making the rounds today... Clinton sounds a lot like Trump does. It's scary how the DNC has been overtaken by open border socialists today. http://youtu.be/4384XQR44yM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Oh, I forgot about that "war." I wonder why I forgot... Iraq, as if I need to explain this, was in a class by itself. It's disingenuous to dismiss what happened in Libya. 44 spent every day in office at war, while he inherited Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to a degree, Libya was a war of convenience. You may downplay what happened in Libya, but I assure you the citizens of Libya do not. We took out Gaddafi and then abandoned the people to the extremists in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Libya says hello, if that's not on Obama I'm not sure who you put it on. For those keeping score, during 44's tenure we bombed 7 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. Under 43 we bombed 4 countries. 44 dropped 26k+ bombs in 2016 alone. What's the prob then? We are bombing the bejesus out of them. It's the platform that got us into the Trumpian era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 What's the prob then? We are bombing the bejesus out of them. It's the platform that got us into the Trumpian era. The problem is the revisionist history that attempts to portray 44 as a peace-time president. He was anything but -- and not every conflict he engaged in was inherited from 43. In fact 44 went out of his way to expand the drone program while trying to convince Americans that it's not really the same thing as dropping bombs from bombers... Take the politics out and what you're left with is 15 years of war, spanning two administrations, that have left the ME a cluster!@#$ and made the world less stable as a result. 44 has to own that as much as 43. He ran on stopping wars of convenience and then proceeded to wage several. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 It's disingenuous to dismiss what happened in Libya. 44 spent every day in office at war, while he inherited Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to a degree, Libya was a war of convenience. You may downplay what happened in Libya, but I assure you the citizens of Libya do not. We took out Gaddafi and then abandoned the people to the extremists in the region. What would you have done? Left Quadaffi in power? Let him slaughter his citizens to stay in power? And after that sending in our troops would have been Iraq all over again. No win situation really. Iraq was a very different situation. It would be like us going into Saudi Arabia now, yes, a corrupt dictatorship, but at least there is some order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) Here's what's making the rounds today... Clinton sounds a lot like Trump does. It's scary how the DNC has been overtaken by open border socialists today. http://youtu.be/4384XQR44yM Bill Clinton from the 1990s making its "rounds"... ROTFLMAO! Bill Clinton 20 years ago bad!!! Ha! Quick... Retreat to the echo chamber! Edited January 27, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 What would you have done? Left Quadaffi in power? Let him slaughter his citizens to stay in power? And after that sending in our troops would have been Iraq all over again. No win situation really. Iraq was a very different situation. It would be like us going into Saudi Arabia now, yes, a corrupt dictatorship, but at least there is some order And abandoning the people to the whims of ISIS over Gadaffi is better? Or is it the same? Or is it worse? If 44 went into Libya to help the people he did a piss poor job of it. Your original post indicated that 44 never started a war, I pointed out Libya to remind you that was an incorrect position. Ask yourself this, what did Libya and Iraq have in common with Syria before we overthrew their governments? If you can answer that honesty you might have a different spin on the motivations that led our involvement in all three conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 The problem is the revisionist history that attempts to portray 44 as a peace-time president. He was anything but -- and not every conflict he engaged in was inherited from 43. In fact 44 went out of his way to expand the drone program while trying to convince Americans that it's not really the same thing as dropping bombs from bombers... Take the politics out and what you're left with is 15 years of war, spanning two administrations, that have left the ME a cluster!@#$ and made the world less stable as a result. 44 has to own that as much as 43. He ran on stopping wars of convenience and then proceeded to wage several. Well...ok, to a point. You could argue its a much longer historical trend if you toss in imperialism, the cold war and now the GWOT. Obama, like Bush, was determined not to have another 9-11 on his watch so they bombed suspected terror strongholds. Tons of young, unemployed men and they get angry at a world that could give a crap about them so they get angry and we bomb them. Its a f*** up world and Obama played the game, yes he was as guilty as Bush, Netenyaho and all the other leaders here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Let's just move forward and see how this plays out. Can't unring a bell, especially my bell. ;-) We the people (I said we!) elected a reality God, internet troll, demagogue. Let's all be Gods (DCTom, some have to try) & internet trolls (some don't ;-) ). It does keep everybody from listening to the same bs echo. Why ask for civility in an uncivil world. Stay light on your feet and learn to dig under or climb over (a wall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well...ok, to a point. You could argue its a much longer historical trend if you toss in imperialism, the cold war and now the GWOT. Obama, like Bush, was determined not to have another 9-11 on his watch so they bombed suspected terror strongholds. Tons of young, unemployed men and they get angry at a world that could give a crap about them so they get angry and we bomb them. Its a f*** up world and Obama played the game, yes he was as guilty as Bush, Netenyaho and all the other leaders here. Now you're getting closer to the truth. I'm with you in the sense that presidents no longer dictate foreign policy as much as they are hostages to the foreign policy wishes of the corporate and financial interests who really wield the power in Washington. That has a chance to change under 45. Not sure how much of a chance but certainly more so than if the establishment's candidate, who was campaigning on expanding our current wars by directly attacking Russian troops in Syria, had won. That's not to say I'm a trump guy. I'm not. But when looking at the evidence dispassionately the best thing you can say about the guy's foreign policy agenda is that it's not a continuation of the past several decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 It's disingenuous to dismiss what happened in Libya. 44 spent every day in office at war, while he inherited Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to a degree, Libya was a war of convenience. You may downplay what happened in Libya, but I assure you the citizens of Libya do not. We took out Gaddafi and then abandoned the people to the extremists in the region. You're forgetting, though, the American attitude is that it's not "war" unless we have ground forces attacking a sovereign nation. Iraq was a war. Afghanistan, a war. Libya in the 80's? Not a war. Kosovo? Not a war. Iraq, 1991-2002? Not a war. Iran, 1987-1988? Not a war. But Grenada? That was a mother!@#$ing war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 You're forgetting, though, the American attitude is that it's not "war" unless we have ground forces attacking a sovereign nation. Iraq was a war. Afghanistan, a war. Libya in the 80's? Not a war. Kosovo? Not a war. Iraq, 1991-2002? Not a war. Iran, 1987-1988? Not a war. But Grenada? That was a mother!@#$ing war... Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Now you're getting closer to the truth. I'm with you in the sense that presidents no longer dictate foreign policy as much as they are hostages to the foreign policy wishes of the corporate and financial interests who really wield the power in Washington. That has a chance to change under 45. Not sure how much of a chance but certainly more so than if the establishment's candidate, who was campaigning on expanding our current wars by directly attacking Russian troops in Syria, had won. That's not to say I'm a trump guy. I'm not. But when looking at the evidence dispassionately the best thing you can say about the guy's foreign policy agenda is that it's not a continuation of the past several decades. It could also get much worse with Trump. He literally tries to make enemies, the right enemies, if you will. Calling for torture, to take Iraqs oil, another chance at Iraq, going after their families, America first, Muslim bans etc, I think you can make the case this guy sees war as a sure fire popularity contest winner. Still, what would/should be the correct policy towards ME? I mean Saudi Arabia is just a terribly oppressive country, yet our friend. Bill Clinton from the 1990s making its "rounds"... ROTFLMAO! Bill Clinton 20 years ago bad!!! Ha! Quick... Retreat to the echo chamber! Hey, at least they have seemed to retired Jimmy Carter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 It could also get much worse with Trump. It absolutely could. No denying that. Ask yourself this, what did Libya and Iraq have in common with Syria before we overthrew their governments? If you can answer that honesty you might have a different spin on the motivations that led our involvement in all three conflicts. Think about that question some more. And then compare your answer to what 45's proposing on the foreign policy front and you might be surprised at what you conclude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 It absolutely could. No denying that. Think about that question some more. And then compare your answer to what 45's proposing on the foreign policy front and you might be surprised at what you conclude. i don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts