- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 43,363
- Reaction score
- 8,194
True but none were as devastating as 9-11.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
True but none were as devastating as 9-11.
The man has spent so much time saying unreasonable things about foreigners.
Does anybody really think the words he's saying to appear electable have any truth value?
Donald "I would bomb the shit out of ISIS" Trump is only marginally better than the rest of the GOP.
Ok, he's not willing to put boots on the ground. But he's willing to continue to murder through bombs. It's these bombs that create anti-US animosity and fuel fanaticism.
I'm all for peace but in the face of evil and our total enemy we will have to fight. We are confronted with an enemy of the caliber of Nazism and Communism. The only difference is that Nazis and Communists were actually in govts of real countries thus were forced to behave somewhat rational and not completely self-destructive - that's gone with radical Islamists.
WTF? 30 million people died fighting against Nazism (where we teamed up with communists to do it, let's not forget), how in the hell is this similar?
And we already know how to "fight" them: support internal forces in the region that are already fighting them (Iran, the Kurds, for example) and stop our own drone attacks and other bombing, which is what creates support for their causes.
The "we don't wanna fight... but we just HAVE to" line is the same one Bush used to get us into Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq the 1st time. In fact, that's the line that EVERY attacking government uses to justify their aggression. We're peaceful, we don't wanna attack anyone... but they're just forcing our hands!
And they're always full of shit.
In the SC debate he seemed to be the only (GOP) candidate who understood what is going on in the Middle East.
Bush made the mistake to concentrate on Iraq, when Saddam and Osama hated each other's guts. Saddam was no friend of the US but he was the enemy of our fiercest enemy. But Bush removed him and handed the whole Country to Islamic extremists. He de-stabilized the Middle East, he created a recruiting camp, breeding ground and safe haven for our enemies and he diverted attention and resources from the much more important war in Afghanistan to the war of choice in Iraq.
Trump seemed to be the only one who called this.
Also Trump was clear on Syria: Our enemy and the enemy of the wider West is ISIS and Islamic extremism in general. It's not Assad. Again, he might be a dictator and not our closest friend but he never threatened the US and he is an enemy of Islamic extremism. By removing him we would - again - further de-stabilize the Middle East, we would hand yet another Country over to Islamic extremists and would would again not focus on our enemy but on other "priorities".
Also, Iran is neither our biggest enemy nor our biggest problem in the region.
Why does only Trump understand this? What's wrong with Jeb and Rubio? I never thought much of Trump but I am really puzzled that he seems to be the most clear headed when it comes to foreign policy.
Donald "I would bomb the shit out of ISIS" Trump is only marginally better than the rest of the GOP.
Ok, he's not willing to put boots on the ground. But he's willing to continue to murder through bombs. It's these bombs that create anti-US animosity and fuel fanaticism.
*CanuckistanVietnam is the country with the most favorable view of the US.
WTF? 30 million people died fighting against Nazism (where we teamed up with communists to do it, let's not forget), how in the hell is this similar?
And we already know how to "fight" them: support internal forces in the region that are already fighting them (Iran, the Kurds, for example) and stop our own drone attacks and other bombing, which is what creates support for their causes.
.
I think it can but its much more complicated than he's making it out to be. It matters who you're bombing and why.I don't think there is any real evidence of this. In fact, I think it is much more accurate to argue that US drone strikes don't really increase or decrease terrorism much. There may be other reasons to stop interfering, but acting like bombing has a cause and effect relationship with terrorism is not true.
But credit where it's due.
I think he's good in SC. Checking out his SC numbers from RCP, he's been a rock there. I'll be surprised if he stumbles in the next 11 days. The people who are carrying him there don't seem likely to hate him for his anti-party rhetoric.hi Work Play,
in terms of Mr. Trump's statements regarding Mr. Bush's war in Iraq, yes, that's how i see it too.
credit where it's due.
the only way this move makes sense to me is that it's a long play towards the general, where he can draw a distinction between himself and Mrs. Clinton.
i think its crazy, though, and will cost him SC.
- IGIT
I think he's good in SC. Checking out his SC numbers from RCP, he's been a rock there. I'll be surprised if he stumbles in the next 11 days. The people who are carrying him there don't seem likely to hate him for his anti-party rhetoric.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html