Lady Murasaki wrote:He said from the beginning he wanted the troops outta there so it’s not really a big surprise.
Maddog wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:He said from the beginning he wanted the troops outta there so it’s not really a big surprise.
And certain republicans and democrats bitching about it is no surprise.
Of course if Obama was doing this, they would switch positions.
There's only a handful of congressmen that can be counted on not to be flip flopping hypocrites.
Lady Murasaki wrote:Are you for or against Trumps position on this rolly?
Maddog wrote:Bringing troops home from Syria angers conservative and liberal leaders.
Policing the world's politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats can come together on, and now here's Trump, the big meanie, spoiling their fun! Quick, cue rampant paranoia and a lot of Henny-Penny huffing...
But Trump isn't backing down in the face of criticism from his usual allies as well as Democrats. This morning, he tweeted that it was Russia, Iran, and Syria's job to take care of ISIS now.
A predictable chorus of hawkish Republicans assailed Trump for making, in the words of perpetually bloodthirsty Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), a "huge Obama-like mistake." (Barack Obama made many mistakes; one of the costliest, of course, was his disastrous intervention in Libya, which quickly became a haven for terrorists.) Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) lamented that pulling out too early would "haunt this administration and America for years to come." But as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, America is also haunted by doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on open-ended commitments that cost innocent lives and billions of dollars while doing nothing to fundamentally improve the war-torn Middle East.
The mainstream liberal response to Trump's Syria announcement was so overwhelmingly negative that it suggests any anti-war wing of the Democratic Party is clearly dead. This shift was of course already underway during the Obama years, when policies that would have provoked outrage under President George W. Bush drew soft sighs at best.
Now, it seems abundantly clear that a lot of the left's anti-war momentum under Bush was actually just rooted in anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment. And with a Republican president that is ever-so-slightly opposed to endless war, Democrats are emboldened to openly embrace their own ignorant, authoritarian, world-policing ways in full form. (A pox on all their goddamn glass houses.)
Among the few members of Congress to comment positively about the president's decision was Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who declared he was "proud of the president today to hear that he is declaring victory in Syria."
https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/20/trum ... withdrawal
calitom wrote:Maddog wrote:Bringing troops home from Syria angers conservative and liberal leaders.
Policing the world's politics and bombing brown people is one of the few things that mainstream Republicans and Democrats can come together on, and now here's Trump, the big meanie, spoiling their fun! Quick, cue rampant paranoia and a lot of Henny-Penny huffing...
But Trump isn't backing down in the face of criticism from his usual allies as well as Democrats. This morning, he tweeted that it was Russia, Iran, and Syria's job to take care of ISIS now.
A predictable chorus of hawkish Republicans assailed Trump for making, in the words of perpetually bloodthirsty Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), a "huge Obama-like mistake." (Barack Obama made many mistakes; one of the costliest, of course, was his disastrous intervention in Libya, which quickly became a haven for terrorists.) Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) lamented that pulling out too early would "haunt this administration and America for years to come." But as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, America is also haunted by doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on open-ended commitments that cost innocent lives and billions of dollars while doing nothing to fundamentally improve the war-torn Middle East.
The mainstream liberal response to Trump's Syria announcement was so overwhelmingly negative that it suggests any anti-war wing of the Democratic Party is clearly dead. This shift was of course already underway during the Obama years, when policies that would have provoked outrage under President George W. Bush drew soft sighs at best.
Now, it seems abundantly clear that a lot of the left's anti-war momentum under Bush was actually just rooted in anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment. And with a Republican president that is ever-so-slightly opposed to endless war, Democrats are emboldened to openly embrace their own ignorant, authoritarian, world-policing ways in full form. (A pox on all their goddamn glass houses.)
Among the few members of Congress to comment positively about the president's decision was Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who declared he was "proud of the president today to hear that he is declaring victory in Syria."
https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/20/trum ... withdrawal
Thank God we are finally getting out. This puts a crimp in the NWO/DEEP STATEs plans
Rolluplostinspace wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Are you for or against Trumps position on this rolly?
I think his statement is bullshit and part of an agenda.
From the link >> By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State’s former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000—twice the number that is supposed to represent a “full withdrawal” from Syrian soil.
It would also be nice to think the president and commander-in-chief has the final say in his administration’s policies overseas, given the constitution by which we are supposed to be governed. But the misleading announcement on the withdrawal of troops, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggest something close to exactly the opposite.
Lady Murasaki wrote:Maddog wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:He said from the beginning he wanted the troops outta there so it’s not really a big surprise.
And certain republicans and democrats bitching about it is no surprise.
Of course if Obama was doing this, they would switch positions.
There's only a handful of congressmen that can be counted on not to be flip flopping hypocrites.
Lol, did no one bitch while Obama was president? Were you asleep during those 8 years?
calitom wrote:Rolluplostinspace wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Are you for or against Trumps position on this rolly?
I think his statement is bullshit and part of an agenda.
From the link >> By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State’s former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000—twice the number that is supposed to represent a “full withdrawal” from Syrian soil.
It would also be nice to think the president and commander-in-chief has the final say in his administration’s policies overseas, given the constitution by which we are supposed to be governed. But the misleading announcement on the withdrawal of troops, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggest something close to exactly the opposite.
dont be an arse. what the hell is wrong with you?? the guy does something good and what you support but you have to bash him. Thats Trump derangement syndrome. I thought you were better than that
Rolluplostinspace wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Are you for or against Trumps position on this rolly?
I think his statement is bullshit and part of an agenda.
From the link >> By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State’s former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000—twice the number that is supposed to represent a “full withdrawal” from Syrian soil.
It would also be nice to think the president and commander-in-chief has the final say in his administration’s policies overseas, given the constitution by which we are supposed to be governed. But the misleading announcement on the withdrawal of troops, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggest something close to exactly the opposite.
Maddog wrote:Rolluplostinspace wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Are you for or against Trumps position on this rolly?
I think his statement is bullshit and part of an agenda.
From the link >> By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State’s former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000—twice the number that is supposed to represent a “full withdrawal” from Syrian soil.
It would also be nice to think the president and commander-in-chief has the final say in his administration’s policies overseas, given the constitution by which we are supposed to be governed. But the misleading announcement on the withdrawal of troops, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggest something close to exactly the opposite.
The constitution limits the war powers of the president. Not that any of them care anymore.
Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests