General political chat

Willmark

Well-Known Member
I've said it before, but one can support both Israel and the Palestinians. One doesn't need to pose a dichotomy (and I'm not saying you are).
We had nearly the entire world behind us to go into Afghanistan. We told them to hand him over, the Taliban said no. 100% justifiable.

Iraq? Not so much, I was not a fan of invasion then, now? Even worse in hindsight.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
liking only because I truly appreciate the information and you sharing it. I do not like the actual history that is being shared mind you.
I think I understand what you’re saying... had to read it a couple of times.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
We had nearly the entire world behind us to go into Afghanistan. We told them to hand him over, the Taliban said no. 100% justifiable.

Iraq? Not so much, I was not a fan of invasion then, now? Even worse in hindsight.
Agreed (though I think you quoted the wrong post of mine :)).
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
I mean... wasn't the invasion of Iraq, under the Bush administration, widely considered to be the reason ISIS exists today? The blowback of that decision, to enter Iraq... If that hadn't happened... well.
False....its goes much further than that. Goes all the way to the 80s in which we trained rebels to help attack Iran and threw them aside later once we were done which created a negative sense of betrayal. Then add in all the continued activity in North Africa and middle east since then in which we did things that didn't win the hearts and minds of the people which include not thinking long term about drone strikes targets and being more precision based thus hitting some innocent and non ISIS households who then join ISIS because we hit their wife/daughter/son because we don't care about civilian causalities.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
But ISIS did not form until after events of 2003 and beyond.
"2011 - Libyan revolution becomes part of the so-called "Arab Spring" authored by the West. Under the guise of bringing "freedom & democracy" to Libya, the CIA destabilized their legitimate, sovereign government. Obama then ordered air strikes against the country. (Wait a minute -we're illegally attacking some foreign nation -shocker). As is our habit, we funded, trained, and armed Al Qaeda jihadists (specifically Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad ) to topple the government. This group became what we now refer to as "ISIS". Through this group, Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi would be executed without a trial (trial for God only knows what). Despite the fact that Libya had the highest standard of living of any country on the continent, the media blitz sold the line that this was a "humanitarian mission". Wonder why they didn't choose to use those resources to combat the ongoing genocide in Nigeria, Sudan, or Congo? Interesting how Benghazi plays into this, but that's a story for another day. Long story short, Libya is now a violent cesspool of a nation. The weapons used to topple Libya were then funneled through Turkey to Syria to be used to overthrow their sovereign government despite the denial of such activity from Washington. Fast forward to Syria. As was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, we somehow assumed that we could control these lunatics. ISIS became a public relations nightmare and eventually turned back. The US State dept came out and said that we were then only funding "moderate" rebels. WT_ is a moderate rebel lunatic who can't wait to meet his 10,000 virgins? The problem for the US is that the "Free Syria Army" worked hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda, both with the goal of seeing Syria ruled under Sharia. "

Something I wrote previously.
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
From Brexit to jury sentences, there are many topics on which we all offer our own non-expert “armchair” opinions. That’s the nature of a discussion forum.
Except that I've worn the uniform and earned the Infantry cord yet you seem so offended that I think a traitor should be put to death...
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
If you just dig anywhere, you’ll find Trump did something wrong.

More breaking swamp news:


A666FF2E-3AD9-47A6-B40B-B208476F23BA.jpeg

President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.

**Crooked is as crooked does!

Very hard to maintain a moral case for continuing to support this guy, isn’t it?
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
If you just dig anywhere, you’ll find Trump did something wrong.

More breaking swamp news:


View attachment 417204

President Donald Trump pressed then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to help persuade the Justice Department to drop a criminal case against an Iranian-Turkish gold trader who was a client of Rudy Giuliani, according to three people familiar with the 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.

Tillerson refused, arguing it would constitute interference in an ongoing investigation of the trader, Reza Zarrab, according to the people. They said other participants in the Oval Office were shocked by the request.

**Crooked is as crooked does!

Very hard to maintain a moral case for continuing to support this guy, isn’t it?
I mean......he’s just so completely corrupt. I do not have the slightest idea how anyone can still support him and then look themselves in the mirror. It makes no sense.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I mean......he’s just so completely corrupt. I do not have the slightest idea how anyone can still support him and then look themselves in the mirror. It makes no sense.
Ah! There you are! I was hoping we could continue our earlier discussion. It never really got past your first proclamation about Trump supporters (as you've once again done above).

Here's where we left off in regards to the current Supreme Court gay rights issue. If you remember, you provided a link with the statement "Very concerned. Are the gay Trump supporters on here happy now?" I'm really interested in your thoughts but for some strange reason you've offered none:

I'm genuinely curious how you could lump a possibly negative outcome on Trump and his supporters, gay or otherwise? If I'm reading the article correctly, speculation is that the justices are almost evenly divided and that the controlling vote could turn out to be Neil Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) who seemed receptive to the argument that no matter what Congress had in mind in 1964, the words of the law would apply to sexual orientation, if not transgender status as well.

Trump has only appointed two justices. Gorsuch seems tilted in your favor (unless I'm reading it incorrectly?) and the only other Trump appointee hasn't given many clues as to what his position is. So for the court to be almost evenly divided it would require mostly non-Trump appointees for such dissension.

Again, I'm not supporting or defending Trump, I'm simply trying to figure out how you would equate a negative outcome as being primarily due to Trump?
 

Dead2009

Well-Known Member
So who here is now going to publicly proclaim they will boycott Facebook? Anyone?

You can almost bet that the left will do just that, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say as far as Trump ads.
 
Top Bottom