Jump to content

Trump Destroying The Republic


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

Reagan will be rolling in his grave. Putin's puppet is the POTUS.

 

Every single one of his action is to undermine US democracy and further Putin's cause.

 

1) Destroying NATO alliance

2) Abandoning Kurds, supporting Syria

........

 

This is not just the pee pee tape. Those two mail order brides from former USSR may hold some secrets as well. Internet has killed democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan will be rolling in his grave. Putin's puppet is the POTUS.

 

Every single one of his action is to undermine US democracy and further Putin's cause.

 

1) Destroying NATO alliance

2) Abandoning Kurds, supporting Syria

........

 

This is not just the pee pee tape. Those two mail order brides from former USSR may hold some secrets as well. Internet has killed democracy.

 

Having a father in law and/or mother in law visit the US back when the iron-curtain was still up was very unusual. It would likely have only happened with prior preparation and the understanding of a debriefing afterwards. That alone is evidence that the Soviet files on Trump likely go back to Reagan's time or even earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another example of severe Trump Derangement Syndrome:

 

William McRaven simply states that Trump is destroying the Republic:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/former-top-navy-seal-oversaw-212504674.html

 

Cheers!

 

You don't get deeper into TDS than to confuse the Military Industrial Complex with the Republic.  If it takes a Civilian Bully in the form of Citizen Trump to stand up to the interventionist bullies, so be it.

 

You've got Turks, terrorist-Kurds, non-terrorist Syrian Kurds, Iranians, and Russians mixing it up over a lot of sand.  And you want to keep our Americans boys in the middle of this?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear the expression "you can fight them over there or you can fight them over here"?

 

Who's "them"?  Are the Turks coming here to attack Americans?  The Kurds?  The Syrians? The Iranians?  The Russians? 

 

If you're thinking ISIS, all 5 of the groups I listed above are anti-ISIS.  ISIS has no future in Syria, or anywhere in the Middle East where the Turks, Kurds, Syrians, Iranians, and Russians are.  And they don't need our help.

 

Why do you want American troops in Syria? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another example of severe Trump Derangement Syndrome:

 

William McRaven simply states that Trump is destroying the Republic:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/former-top-navy-seal-oversaw-212504674.html

 

Cheers!

 

You don't get deeper into TDS than to confuse the Military Industrial Complex with the Republic.  If it takes a Civilian Bully in the form of Citizen Trump to stand up to the interventionist bullies, so be it.

 

You've got Turks, terrorist-Kurds, non-terrorist Syrian Kurds, Iranians, and Russians mixing it up over a lot of sand.  And you want to keep our Americans boys in the middle of this?

 

cobafdek, what IS the Republic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why do you want American troops in Syria?"

 

Because they were helping to keep the peace.

 

Interventionism is unconstitutional. You also cannot got to war without congressional approval. How many terrorist attacks from Middle Eastern Terrorist groups were there prior to 1958? ZERO. The constant prodding, poking, and intervening in the Middle East has produced the terror we deal with today. The US never went to the Middle East to "keep the peace." There hasn't been peace for thousands of years over there and there won't be anytime soon. The hatred of the US has grown in the middle east because of our involvement.

 

What has the war in the Middle East given us?

- Dictators that are just as bad as the ones we removed.

- Oil that we don't need

- Bankruptcy

- Terrorism

- More soldier deaths from suicide than actual combat

- Increase in the military industrial complex power

- Soldiers deploying to a war that started before they were born

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isolationism didn’t work for the US in the 1930's and early 40's.

Do you really believe it works today?

Close your eyes and everyone will leave you alone?

Nice idea, but just doesn’t work that way. We live in a global society.

 

What is a governments role? To protect and serve the interests of its citizens. I'm not saying to isolate ourselves. But I'm certainly not advocating for military bases in every country across the globe at the cost of US citizen tax dollars. That's reckless and irresponsible policy. If a country needs US support fine, but they can pay for it. The US oversteps constantly be meddling in elections, overthrowing govts, funding terrorist groups and mercenaries to overthrow governments etc.

 

I'm asking for diplomacy and non-interventionism (like the constitution outlines).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is hardly an isolationist - we are the big swinging dick in NATO to protect Europe.

 

In the Far East, we protect S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and the Philippines from Chinese aggression.

 

That is our role - and all President Trump is trying to do is to get others to PARTICIPATE and carry SOME of the load.

 

We should not be the policeman for the whole world.

 

In regards to the Middle East, there is no reason Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Europe and a few others should carry a large part of the load

as they have a huge interest in the direction the Middle East heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“The US is hardly an isolationist - we are the big swinging dick in NATO to protect Europe”

 

Absolutely, I don’t disagree with you at all.

 

It is the current trend towards isolationism and nationalism that is the concern. And yes, some of these countries should step up, but never forget that the U.S. presence in other parts of the world is not necessarily altruistic, it is for the protection of the U.S. - which takes me back to the statement - ”you can fight them over there or over here”.

 

As far as other countries stepping up, it often includes paying U$ for U.S. made weapons that helps support the U.S. arms industry.  As well, many countries provide land for U.S. bases which are necessary for U.S. strategic interests around the world and those assets don’t necessarily show up on the books as perhaps a fleet of war ships would.

 

“If a country needs US support fine, but they can pay for it.”

 

Are you are suggesting that the US military should now be a gun for hire or a new mercenary service provider?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

“The US is hardly an isolationist - we are the big swinging dick in NATO to protect Europe”

 

Absolutely, I don’t disagree with you at all.

 

It is the current trend towards isolationism and nationalism that is the concern. And yes, some of these countries should step up, but never forget that the U.S. presence in other parts of the world is not necessarily altruistic, it is for the protection of the U.S. - which takes me back to the statement - ”you can fight them over there or over here”.

 

As far as other countries stepping up, it often includes paying U$ for U.S. made weapons that helps support the U.S. arms industry.  As well, many countries provide land for U.S. bases which are necessary for U.S. strategic interests around the world and those assets don’t necessarily show up on the books as perhaps a fleet of war ships would.

 

“If a country needs US support fine, but they can pay for it.”

 

Are you are suggesting that the US military should now be a gun for hire or a new mercenary service provider?

 

Fight who over here exactly? The Middle East was relatively peaceful before we started blowing it up. The reason they hate us so much now is because of how many civilians we have killed. We have been there for decades and people have grown up, had children who have also grown up and had kids of their own who have experienced nothing but death and destruction of their cities, schools, businesses etc. So “fight them over there” is fear mongering at its finest. You sound exactly like Bolton. Nobody would chance an invasion against the US (as long as we have the 2nd A) and the only ones capable would be China and Russia with Iran combined. The ONLY reason the US is experiencing some type of nationalism right now is directly a result of interventionism and the fruitless waste of money and lives. 

 

No, I’m not suggesting the US be a gun for hire. I’m saying it’s fine if countries would like the US to support their defense capabilities. But they should pay for it. And no, US troops should not be used by others for offensive purposes. But peace through strength is a real and effective strategy. It’s funny, people complain about things like Russia interfering in our election, yet advocate for US meddling in other countries affairs because “Id rather fight them there than here.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that if the US pulls back its forces from around the world the vacuum created will be filled by other countries whose interests are not necessarily aligned to those of the U.S..

 

This will lead to a shrinkage of U.S. power and influence that will be filled by countries like Russia, China and Iran.

 

Score one more for Mr. Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that if the US pulls back its forces from around the world the vacuum created will be filled by other countries whose interests are not necessarily aligned to those of the U.S..

 

This will lead to a shrinkage of U.S. power and influence that will be filled by countries like Russia, China and Iran.

 

Score one more for Mr. Putin.

 

So because of poor policy initially, we should continue with the poor policy to avoid the full brunt of consequences from said poor policy? At some point, you have to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with poor policy, it has to do with autocratic regimes attempting to gain more power, territories, and political positioning. Personally I,d rather not have China Russia and Turkey expanding their borders and influence, but I guess free society isn’t for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“So because of poor policy initially, we should continue with the poor policy to avoid the full brunt of consequences from said poor policy? At some point, you have to leave.”

 

So in your view what’s the goal?  Withdraw all US military world wide? Withdraw all middle east troops? All European troops? Korean? Where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with poor policy, it has to do with autocratic regimes attempting to gain more power, territories, and political positioning. Personally I,d rather not have China Russia and Turkey expanding their borders and influence, but I guess free society isn’t for everyone.

 

Then by your standards we should just engage in imperialism. If you're so concerned about China, Russia, North Korea and the potential of expansion then let's just take over these countries through brute force.

 

Simply hanging around (Middle East) and throwing ineffective solutions at the issues aren't helping. What good has been accomplished in the Middle East? Are these nations better off than before the US got involved? Arguably no...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“So because of poor policy initially, we should continue with the poor policy to avoid the full brunt of consequences from said poor policy? At some point, you have to leave.”

 

So in your view what’s the goal?  Withdraw all US military world wide? Withdraw all middle east troops? All European troops? Korean? Where do you draw the line?

 

Yes. If you want to buy weapons and systems from us that's one things. But support them yourself with your own men and women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then by your standards we should just engage in imperialism. If you're so concerned about China, Russia, North Korea and the potential of expansion then let's just take over these countries through brute force.

 

Simply hanging around (Middle East) and throwing ineffective solutions at the issues aren't helping. What good has been accomplished in the Middle East? Are these nations better off than before the US got involved? Arguably no...

There is a MASSIVE difference between a full-fledged war against autocratic global powers vs. placing troops in border countries to prevent the expansion of said global power. The cost-benefit of the latter option is much more favorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then by your standards we should just engage in imperialism. If you're so concerned about China, Russia, North Korea and the potential of expansion then let's just take over these countries through brute force.

 

Simply hanging around (Middle East) and throwing ineffective solutions at the issues aren't helping. What good has been accomplished in the Middle East? Are these nations better off than before the US got involved? Arguably no...

There is a MASSIVE difference between a full-fledged war against autocratic global powers vs. placing troops in border countries to prevent the expansion of said global power. The cost-benefit of the latter option is much more favorable.

 

There is also a vast difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. How has the cost of this "benefit" affected the American citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asking to calculate the cost of a world where Russia, China, etc. all had unfettered access to bordering territories over the past 60 years. Nobody knows what that world would look like.

 

It's a judgement call that the US and its democratic allies have made over the past 60 years, and it seems to have worked pretty well considering the US has been the driving force globally over that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. currently has 170,000 troops deployed in 150 countries.

 

If they were all recalled do you not think it would destabilize dozens of areas throughout the world? Would you really want to bring all those troops home? What would you do with them? You can be assured that Russia, China and others would find this an ideal situation and they would very quickly fill that void.

 

It is easy to say ‘bring them home’ but if that isn’t a major isolationist move I don’t know what you would call it. You suggest they are deployed in an interventionist move but in reality they are essentially stabilizing and peacekeeping forces. If you destabilize the world do you honestly think that is in the best interests of the U.S.? Have you considered the consequences?

 

Once the Russians and Chinese fill those voids, how long do you think it would be before U.S. corporations start being turffed out and replaced by Chinese and Russians? How long do you think it would be before ports and airports were closed to U.S. military?

 

Additionally you might consider that Trump has gone out of his way to insult most of the U.S. allies and, well, a lot may believe that Russia, China, et.al. might be a more loyal ally. After all look at how the Kurds have been treated after being loyal allies. US credibility is not what it once was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...