Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on December 20, 2018, 03:21:43 PM
-
this is good news ....right?
every feels the country is going to be much safer going forward ?
-
Other than Wallpaper Pence and Dimwit Devos, is there any of his original team left at this point?
-
Other than Wallpaper Pence and Dimwit Devos, is there any of his original team left at this point?
Maybe he can give the job to Mulvaney
He's already the Budget Direct, Head of the CFPB (he also changed the name to BCFP) and now Chief of Staff
Does he get 3 different salaries?
Maybe he can just cut out the middle man and give the job to Putin
-
this is good news ....right?
every feels the country is going to be much safer going forward ?
If you feel this is good news, then you're more retarded than we have given you credit for.
-
If you feel this is good news, then you're more retarded than we have given you credit for.
Why isn't it good news? Trump hires "only the best" but as soon as they leave, they are no good rats, losers, cowards, lazy, dumb people. Better to get Mattis out now so Trump can pick someone more qualified to take his job.
-
According to his dumbass supporters Trump knows more than everyone. Only scumbags want to stay and work for him, period. Trump is in a tailspin.
-
According to his dumbass supporters Trump knows more than everyone. Only scumbags want to stay and work for him, period. Trump is in a tailspin.
It's not Trump's fault everyone he picks turns out to be a liar or crook.
-
If you feel this is good news, then you're more retarded than we have given you credit for.
are you really this fucking dense ?
I actually need to explain sarcasm to you?
-
Seems like Mattis doesn't think we've defeated ISIS yet
I guess he doesn't realize that Trumps gut is smarter than his brain
The Resignation Letter:
Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
-
are you really this fucking dense ?
I actually need to explain sarcasm to you?
I read all of your posts with my tongue halfway out of my mouth in an attempt to feel your retardedness.
-
Doom shudders for the U.S.A.
Bah!
-
Seems like Mattis doesn't think we've defeated ISIS yet
I guess he doesn't realize that Trumps gut is smarter than his brain
The Resignation Letter:
Let’s be honest. Military guys never think the opponent is defeated and they always want to stay forever. These wars always end up being a giant kick back to the military weapons manufacturers.
One with think that previous paragraph would be coming from someone like you. Yet you’re supporting a continued intervention. How long have we been in Afghanistan? What exactly have we accomplished there?
-
Let’s be honest. Military guys never think the opponent is defeated and they always want to stay forever. These wars always end up being a giant kick back to the military weapons manufacturers.
One with think that previous paragraph would be coming from someone like you. Yet you’re supporting a continued intervention. How long have we been in Afghanistan? What exactly have we accomplished there?
What did we accomplish? We turned big rocks into smaller rocks with JDAMS😀
-
What did we accomplish? We turned big rocks into smaller rocks with JDAMS😀
Good for road building. Just pick up all the spent uranium first.
-
Being reported that Trump is now forcing Mattis out at the end of the year
Is he doing this because he has the best interest of the country in mind as one would expect from the POTUS
Or is he doing this because he's a thin skinned little crybaby who makes all decisions based on what hurts his feelings and doesn't give a rats ass about this country
-
I read all of your posts with my tongue halfway out of my mouth in an attempt to feel your retardedness.
Is it working or is your tongue just getting parched?
-
Being reported that Trump is now forcing Mattis out at the end of the year
Is he doing this because he has the best interest of the country in mind as one would expect from the POTUS
Or is he doing this because he's a thin skinned little crybaby who makes all decisions based on what hurts his feelings and doesn't give a rats ass about this country
This.
-
Being reported that Trump is now forcing Mattis out at the end of the year
Is he doing this because he has the best interest of the country in mind as one would expect from the POTUS
Or is he doing this because he's a thin skinned little crybaby who makes all decisions based on what hurts his feelings and doesn't give a rats ass about this country
If he has a replacement, why wait?
-
So because the current Republican, US president isn't a imperialist warmonger neo-con, all the Libtard, closet imperialist warmonger neo-cons finally come out.
-
Thank goodness Mattis is gone.
You never knew what he was going to do next.
;)
-
If he has a replacement, why wait?
Exactly. Why have a guy hanging around for months? Most companies get rid of someone immediately after a resignation because they don't want them poisoning the well.
-
Did the world end with his departure?
-
Interesting take on the Mattis/Syria situation....
———————————————
Mattis was given six months to come up with an exit strategy. Mattis himself earlier in the administration had stated we did not intend to maintain a long term presence in Syria. He did not attempt to come up with an exit strategy during that six month period. So, him being shocked that the president would still order the US out of Syria should not have come as a surprise to him or anybody at the DOD.
Trump had been clear that the primary mission for the US was to destroy the caliphate and particularly remove ISIS from Raqqa its defacto capital. The reason ISIS was able to gain so much strength in the first place was due to the US government dumping 650 tons of weapons into the country when Obama supported regime change in Syria. Obama later waffled on that policy and abandoned it altogether late in his second term. Trump never had a policy of regime change in Syria.
For people claiming that we're turning Syria over to Russia and/or Iran they've been asleep for the past several decades. Syria has been a client-state of Russia since 1973 hence the existence of the Tarsus naval facility, which is Russia's only Mediterranean port. Iran has been active in Syria since the 1980s which is why Hezbollah has had bases there that it used to attack Lebanon, particularly back in the 1980s and it still uses to influence Lebanon today. We aren't turning something over to them that wasn't already theirs to begin with.
The Turkish-Kurdish-Assad-Saudi problem is nothing we are going to solve militarily. It can only be solved diplomatically unless you want to engage 100,000 plus US troops under a UN flag as a peacekeeping mission for decades. We still have the MFO in the Sinai and there is no sign that will end in the near future. The US has better ISR now in Syria and still maintains the ability to launch airstrikes at will into Syrian territory. If the Kurds need our help against ISIS the US can be there in a very short period of time.
ISIS doesn't have the supply chain of weaponry it had in 2012-14. Trump is not going to dump 650 tons of weapons to include antiarmor weapons into Syria for anti Assad forces. That was a strategic blunder by then CIA Director John Brennan (the man has some many bad decisions it's astonishing he ever rose above the level of junior analyst. He screwed up regarding Khobar Towers in KSA while station chief. He botched Bush's intelligence briefings leaving out key information he did not believe pertinent. He also was the brain behind the arming of Syrian Opposition Groups starting in the spring of 2012. All those antiarmor weapons and M-4s didn't come from Iraq in 2012 and 2013, they came from US.). Trump is attempting a reset in relations between the regional players and is also attempting to make them be more involved in regional security. His biggest problem is going to be the Turks because Erdogan hates the Kurds and Turkey lists the PKK and YPG as terrorist organizations. Guess who else lists PKK as a terrorist organization? The United States does and has since 1997. A lot of people have lobbied US presidents to remove them from the State Departments list of terrorist organizations.
The Kurds have the capability to defend themselves against the remnants of ISIS in their area. The largest pockets of ISIS fighters are in the Syrian control zones, not the coalition control zones. Trump had stated during the campaign he wanted to eliminate the caliphate, get the region powers to do more for regional security, and get the US out of Syria. Those objectives have been accomplished.
The US has had the obsession with occupation since the end of WWII. We occupied Germany, Japan, Italy, and a host of other places to include South Korea. Those nations turned into allies or were existing allies that we helped maintain free. Syria is not an ally, nor will it be. The minute probability of flipping Assad from Russia and Iran died during the Obama Administration when he started arming radical Islamists. Obama had also abandoned the Khalifa Haftar in Libya after sending him from Virginia to help oust Qaddafi. Instead Hillary and Obama supported a former GTMO detainee. So, that also helped fuel the arms into Syria. Groups were smuggling weapons from Libya into Syria and Iraq and also into the Maghreb States.
In the Gulf War, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, the primary objective and then shattered his army. We didn't remove him from power because even as nasty of a ruler as he was, he was still a stabilizing force within Iraq. It also kept some of our allies and enemies in the region in check. Removing Assad would create a similar problem as what happened after Saddam's removal. There would be a power struggle and this time it would likely lead to a more radical government in the Middle East even if the person did not seem so at first. Maliki was doing fine while Bush was in office because Bush was engaged with him frequently, but Obama had more of a hands off approach and Maliki drifted more and more sectarian pissing off the Sunnis. It was Maliki that ordered the Sadr militia crushed in Najaf and Karbala which resulted in Sadr fleeing for Iran. It was Obama that pushed Maliki and Sadr along with Iran together when he abandoned Iraq during the 2010 election crisis.
The Kurds have threatened to release up to 3200 ISIS prisoners. That would be stupid on their part because they are the most likely to feel the negative effects of such a decision. So, those prisoners must not seem too dangerous to the Kurds unless they desire self inflicted wounds. ISIS fighters without weapons aren't nearly as dangerous as ISIS fighters that were getting armed to the teeth by US supplied weapons.
Trump however needs to apply pressure on Erdogan for the sake of the Kurds. The Kurds have actually had cooperation from the Assad government when the Assad regime allowed them to move men, weapons and equipment through government controlled areas to reinforce in the northwest in the Afrin region. Kurdish groups have also been open to talks with the Assad regime since at least June 2018. Kurds have also joined with the Assad regime in the battle for Idlib back in September.
I could write more, but most won't even read beyond two paragraphs.
-
4 days prior to Trump surprise announcement on pulling troops out of Syria , Brett McGurk who was Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL said in an interview
that putting an end to ISIS will be a long-term, multiyear effort.“We’re on track now over the coming months to defeat what used to be the physical space that ISIS controlled,” McGurk told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble. “That will not be the end of ISIS.”
“Nobody is naive,” McGurk said less than a week before Trump’s decision. “The small clandestine cells, the individual terrorist attacks, will remain a threat for some time. That is why we have to remain together as a global coalition to keep the pressure on.”
McGurk resigned over the weekend in solidarity with Mattis after which, Trump and his very good brain tweeted that he's never met McGurk. This is either a lie or an admission by Trump of gross negligence - either of which are equally likely
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/23/before-resigning-us-envoy-mcgurk-warned-isis-will-take-years-to-defeat.html
-
Being reported that Trump is now forcing Mattis out at the end of the year
Is he doing this because he has the best interest of the country in mind as one would expect from the POTUS
Or is he doing this because he's a thin skinned little crybaby who makes all decisions based on what hurts his feelings and doesn't give a rats ass about this country
He’s non essential personnel at this point and doesn’t need to be around other than to maybe transition the new SOD, which I’m sure he will.
One negative thing I will say about Trump (he has many) is that he is too egotistical to explain the reasoning behind his decisions (such as pulling out of Syria in this case). It’s almost as if he thinks himself infallible and if you don’t agree with him or ask him to explain his decisions, that you’re an idiot. Now this is where I split from you and many on the left. I think a lot of his decisions are the correct decisions for our country. Look at the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal (google the speech Schumer made about it some years ago), both were bad for the US. Now if you understood the reasoning of why they were bad, it makes sense. But Trump does not bother to explain to the Country why he’s doing what he’s doing on any platform other than twitter. How about doing a state of the union address and letting people know the “why”? Not everybody is as intelligent as your average get bigger and does not always understand the logic behind things.
-
He’s non essential personnel at this point and doesn’t need to be around other than to maybe transition the new SOD, which I’m sure he will.
One negative thing I will say about Trump (he has many) is that he is too egotistical to explain the reasoning behind his decisions (such as pulling out of Syria in this case). It’s almost as if he thinks himself infallible and if you don’t agree with him or ask him to explain his decisions, that you’re an idiot. Now this is where I split from you and many on the left. I think a lot of his decisions are the correct decisions for our country. Look at the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal (google the speech Schumer made about it some years ago), both were bad for the US. Now if you understood the reasoning of why they were bad, it makes sense. But Trump does not bother to explain to the Country why he’s doing what he’s doing on any platform other than twitter. How about doing a state of the union address and letting people know the “why”? Not everybody is as intelligent as your average get bigger and does not always understand the logic behind things.
please tell me you're joking
He has no fucking reasons
He hasn't spent two seconds even trying to understand the situation or the implications of his gut reaction decisions
-
please tell me you're joking
He has no fucking reasons
He hasn't spent two seconds even trying to understand the situation or the implications of his gut reaction decisions
You must have missed this ::)
Interesting take on the Mattis/Syria situation....
———————————————
Mattis was given six months to come up with an exit strategy. Mattis himself earlier in the administration had stated we did not intend to maintain a long term presence in Syria. He did not attempt to come up with an exit strategy during that six month period. So, him being shocked that the president would still order the US out of Syria should not have come as a surprise to him or anybody at the DOD.
Trump had been clear that the primary mission for the US was to destroy the caliphate and particularly remove ISIS from Raqqa its defacto capital. The reason ISIS was able to gain so much strength in the first place was due to the US government dumping 650 tons of weapons into the country when Obama supported regime change in Syria. Obama later waffled on that policy and abandoned it altogether late in his second term. Trump never had a policy of regime change in Syria.
For people claiming that we're turning Syria over to Russia and/or Iran they've been asleep for the past several decades. Syria has been a client-state of Russia since 1973 hence the existence of the Tarsus naval facility, which is Russia's only Mediterranean port. Iran has been active in Syria since the 1980s which is why Hezbollah has had bases there that it used to attack Lebanon, particularly back in the 1980s and it still uses to influence Lebanon today. We aren't turning something over to them that wasn't already theirs to begin with.
The Turkish-Kurdish-Assad-Saudi problem is nothing we are going to solve militarily. It can only be solved diplomatically unless you want to engage 100,000 plus US troops under a UN flag as a peacekeeping mission for decades. We still have the MFO in the Sinai and there is no sign that will end in the near future. The US has better ISR now in Syria and still maintains the ability to launch airstrikes at will into Syrian territory. If the Kurds need our help against ISIS the US can be there in a very short period of time.
ISIS doesn't have the supply chain of weaponry it had in 2012-14. Trump is not going to dump 650 tons of weapons to include antiarmor weapons into Syria for anti Assad forces. That was a strategic blunder by then CIA Director John Brennan (the man has some many bad decisions it's astonishing he ever rose above the level of junior analyst. He screwed up regarding Khobar Towers in KSA while station chief. He botched Bush's intelligence briefings leaving out key information he did not believe pertinent. He also was the brain behind the arming of Syrian Opposition Groups starting in the spring of 2012. All those antiarmor weapons and M-4s didn't come from Iraq in 2012 and 2013, they came from US.). Trump is attempting a reset in relations between the regional players and is also attempting to make them be more involved in regional security. His biggest problem is going to be the Turks because Erdogan hates the Kurds and Turkey lists the PKK and YPG as terrorist organizations. Guess who else lists PKK as a terrorist organization? The United States does and has since 1997. A lot of people have lobbied US presidents to remove them from the State Departments list of terrorist organizations.
The Kurds have the capability to defend themselves against the remnants of ISIS in their area. The largest pockets of ISIS fighters are in the Syrian control zones, not the coalition control zones. Trump had stated during the campaign he wanted to eliminate the caliphate, get the region powers to do more for regional security, and get the US out of Syria. Those objectives have been accomplished.
The US has had the obsession with occupation since the end of WWII. We occupied Germany, Japan, Italy, and a host of other places to include South Korea. Those nations turned into allies or were existing allies that we helped maintain free. Syria is not an ally, nor will it be. The minute probability of flipping Assad from Russia and Iran died during the Obama Administration when he started arming radical Islamists. Obama had also abandoned the Khalifa Haftar in Libya after sending him from Virginia to help oust Qaddafi. Instead Hillary and Obama supported a former GTMO detainee. So, that also helped fuel the arms into Syria. Groups were smuggling weapons from Libya into Syria and Iraq and also into the Maghreb States.
In the Gulf War, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, the primary objective and then shattered his army. We didn't remove him from power because even as nasty of a ruler as he was, he was still a stabilizing force within Iraq. It also kept some of our allies and enemies in the region in check. Removing Assad would create a similar problem as what happened after Saddam's removal. There would be a power struggle and this time it would likely lead to a more radical government in the Middle East even if the person did not seem so at first. Maliki was doing fine while Bush was in office because Bush was engaged with him frequently, but Obama had more of a hands off approach and Maliki drifted more and more sectarian pissing off the Sunnis. It was Maliki that ordered the Sadr militia crushed in Najaf and Karbala which resulted in Sadr fleeing for Iran. It was Obama that pushed Maliki and Sadr along with Iran together when he abandoned Iraq during the 2010 election crisis.
The Kurds have threatened to release up to 3200 ISIS prisoners. That would be stupid on their part because they are the most likely to feel the negative effects of such a decision. So, those prisoners must not seem too dangerous to the Kurds unless they desire self inflicted wounds. ISIS fighters without weapons aren't nearly as dangerous as ISIS fighters that were getting armed to the teeth by US supplied weapons.
Trump however needs to apply pressure on Erdogan for the sake of the Kurds. The Kurds have actually had cooperation from the Assad government when the Assad regime allowed them to move men, weapons and equipment through government controlled areas to reinforce in the northwest in the Afrin region. Kurdish groups have also been open to talks with the Assad regime since at least June 2018. Kurds have also joined with the Assad regime in the battle for Idlib back in September.
I could write more, but most won't even read beyond two paragraphs.
-
You must have missed this ::)
Interesting take on the Mattis/Syria situation....
———————————————
Mattis was given six months to come up with an exit strategy. Mattis himself earlier in the administration had stated we did not intend to maintain a long term presence in Syria. He did not attempt to come up with an exit strategy during that six month period. So, him being shocked that the president would still order the US out of Syria should not have come as a surprise to him or anybody at the DOD.
Trump had been clear that the primary mission for the US was to destroy the caliphate and particularly remove ISIS from Raqqa its defacto capital. The reason ISIS was able to gain so much strength in the first place was due to the US government dumping 650 tons of weapons into the country when Obama supported regime change in Syria. Obama later waffled on that policy and abandoned it altogether late in his second term. Trump never had a policy of regime change in Syria.
For people claiming that we're turning Syria over to Russia and/or Iran they've been asleep for the past several decades. Syria has been a client-state of Russia since 1973 hence the existence of the Tarsus naval facility, which is Russia's only Mediterranean port. Iran has been active in Syria since the 1980s which is why Hezbollah has had bases there that it used to attack Lebanon, particularly back in the 1980s and it still uses to influence Lebanon today. We aren't turning something over to them that wasn't already theirs to begin with.
The Turkish-Kurdish-Assad-Saudi problem is nothing we are going to solve militarily. It can only be solved diplomatically unless you want to engage 100,000 plus US troops under a UN flag as a peacekeeping mission for decades. We still have the MFO in the Sinai and there is no sign that will end in the near future. The US has better ISR now in Syria and still maintains the ability to launch airstrikes at will into Syrian territory. If the Kurds need our help against ISIS the US can be there in a very short period of time.
ISIS doesn't have the supply chain of weaponry it had in 2012-14. Trump is not going to dump 650 tons of weapons to include antiarmor weapons into Syria for anti Assad forces. That was a strategic blunder by then CIA Director John Brennan (the man has some many bad decisions it's astonishing he ever rose above the level of junior analyst. He screwed up regarding Khobar Towers in KSA while station chief. He botched Bush's intelligence briefings leaving out key information he did not believe pertinent. He also was the brain behind the arming of Syrian Opposition Groups starting in the spring of 2012. All those antiarmor weapons and M-4s didn't come from Iraq in 2012 and 2013, they came from US.). Trump is attempting a reset in relations between the regional players and is also attempting to make them be more involved in regional security. His biggest problem is going to be the Turks because Erdogan hates the Kurds and Turkey lists the PKK and YPG as terrorist organizations. Guess who else lists PKK as a terrorist organization? The United States does and has since 1997. A lot of people have lobbied US presidents to remove them from the State Departments list of terrorist organizations.
The Kurds have the capability to defend themselves against the remnants of ISIS in their area. The largest pockets of ISIS fighters are in the Syrian control zones, not the coalition control zones. Trump had stated during the campaign he wanted to eliminate the caliphate, get the region powers to do more for regional security, and get the US out of Syria. Those objectives have been accomplished.
The US has had the obsession with occupation since the end of WWII. We occupied Germany, Japan, Italy, and a host of other places to include South Korea. Those nations turned into allies or were existing allies that we helped maintain free. Syria is not an ally, nor will it be. The minute probability of flipping Assad from Russia and Iran died during the Obama Administration when he started arming radical Islamists. Obama had also abandoned the Khalifa Haftar in Libya after sending him from Virginia to help oust Qaddafi. Instead Hillary and Obama supported a former GTMO detainee. So, that also helped fuel the arms into Syria. Groups were smuggling weapons from Libya into Syria and Iraq and also into the Maghreb States.
In the Gulf War, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, the primary objective and then shattered his army. We didn't remove him from power because even as nasty of a ruler as he was, he was still a stabilizing force within Iraq. It also kept some of our allies and enemies in the region in check. Removing Assad would create a similar problem as what happened after Saddam's removal. There would be a power struggle and this time it would likely lead to a more radical government in the Middle East even if the person did not seem so at first. Maliki was doing fine while Bush was in office because Bush was engaged with him frequently, but Obama had more of a hands off approach and Maliki drifted more and more sectarian pissing off the Sunnis. It was Maliki that ordered the Sadr militia crushed in Najaf and Karbala which resulted in Sadr fleeing for Iran. It was Obama that pushed Maliki and Sadr along with Iran together when he abandoned Iraq during the 2010 election crisis.
The Kurds have threatened to release up to 3200 ISIS prisoners. That would be stupid on their part because they are the most likely to feel the negative effects of such a decision. So, those prisoners must not seem too dangerous to the Kurds unless they desire self inflicted wounds. ISIS fighters without weapons aren't nearly as dangerous as ISIS fighters that were getting armed to the teeth by US supplied weapons.
Trump however needs to apply pressure on Erdogan for the sake of the Kurds. The Kurds have actually had cooperation from the Assad government when the Assad regime allowed them to move men, weapons and equipment through government controlled areas to reinforce in the northwest in the Afrin region. Kurdish groups have also been open to talks with the Assad regime since at least June 2018. Kurds have also joined with the Assad regime in the battle for Idlib back in September.
I could write more, but most won't even read beyond two paragraphs.
So Mattis in 2018 disagrees with himself
Is that why he resigned?
One question - if we leave does this help ISIS in any way?
Maybe Trump is an idiot savant of military strategy
-
So Mattis in 2018 disagrees with himself
Is that why he resigned?
One question - if we leave does this help ISIS in any way?
Maybe Trump is an idiot savant of military strategy
I’m not sure if it helps isis or not. I think they’re done but I have no doubt the vacuum left behind will create another radical group. Are we to blame for some of the problems in the Middle East from our meddling? I think you could say so, but at some point you have to wind it down and let these people in that part of the world handle their own affairs.
-
Did the world end with his departure?
Not yet.
-
So Mattis in 2018 disagrees with himself
Is that why he resigned?
One question - if we leave does this help ISIS in any way?
Maybe Trump is an idiot savant of military strategy
Assad will crush ISIS without mercy.
-
Assad will crush ISIS without mercy.
According to the warmongering demoncrats like straw and prime, the world will end and it's all Trumps fault.
Again ::)
-
Assad will crush ISIS without mercy.
So much this!!! Look for Assad to finish these guys quickly, or even for the remnants of ISIS to flee to friendlier confines. No ROE for Assad, brutality is all these jihadists understand and Assad will deliver.
-
According to the warmongering demoncrats like straw and prime, the world will end and it's all Trumps fault.
Again ::)
Quite the opposite. Man has been at war since 2334-2279 BC Mesopotamia. You'd think we would have evolved to a more peaceful society.
-
So Mattis in 2018 disagrees with himself
Is that why he resigned?
One question - if we leave does this help ISIS in any way?
Maybe Trump is an idiot savant of military strategy
Syrian Tiger Forces will mop up what is left of ISIS in Syria, and they'll do it quicker once we're gone. The Turks, Russians, and Iranians will barter/squabble over who gets to assert the most influence over Assad (with the Turks coming out with the short straw IMO). Most likely ends up with Assad's forces re-establishing control over Syrian territory as a Russian ally. Iran maintains influence.
Had President Obama done this, he'd get another Nobel Prize. But since it's President Trump..................
-
4 days prior to Trump surprise announcement on pulling troops out of Syria , Brett McGurk who was Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL said in an interview
McGurk resigned over the weekend in solidarity with Mattis after which, Trump and his very good brain tweeted that he's never met McGurk. This is either a lie or an admission by Trump of gross negligence - either of which are equally likely
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/23/before-resigning-us-envoy-mcgurk-warned-isis-will-take-years-to-defeat.html
To be fair, he said he did not know him, not that he’d never met him. Small difference.