A couple of quotes here make this one well worth the read....
QuoteMoreover, the very swiftness of the response carried a message to the wider world. Obama is gone. No more elaborate forensic investigations. No agonized presidential handwringing over the moral dilemmas of a fallen world.
It took Obama 10 months to decide what to do in Afghanistan. It took Trump 63 hours to make Assad pay for his chemical-weapons duplicity.
America demonstrated its capacity for swift, decisive action. And in defense, mind you, of an abstract international norm — a rationale that dramatically overrides the constraints of America First.
Trump's inaugural address had boldly rejected the 70-year American consensus to bear the burdens of world leadership. Less than three months later, the Syrian raid abruptly changed that course with a renewed interventionism — not, to be sure, in the service of a crusade for democracy, but in the service of concrete strategic objectives, broadly defined and extending far beyond our shores.
And....
QuoteThe larger lesson is this: In the end, national interest prevails. Populist isolationism sounds great, rouses crowds and may even win elections. But contra White House adviser Steve Bannon, it's not a governing foreign policy for the United States.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-great-reversal-article-1.3053438
Krauthammer doesn't belabor the point, but "populist isolationism"
does not reassign the Carl Vinson carrier group (and an unknown number of submarines) to wait off the coast of North Korea. In comparison, Obama would be drawing yet another red line in the sand. Begging the enemy to notice how wonderful he is, sending billions to our enemies.
Obama - peace through dialog, long winded anti-american speeches & bowing.
Trump - peace through strength.
What Trump is reversing - Obama's historic collapse of America as a world leader.
Quote from: Hoofer on April 14, 2017, 06:59:16 AM
What Trump is reversing - Obama's historic collapse of America as a world leader.
Well, that one becomes problematic for me, because I don't rate Trump as a conservative, but rather someone quickly adapting to old-fashion instant reversals on policy after actually getting elected. That happens on every presidential watch regardless of party during the honeymoon period; Trump merely gets harped-on more by hypocritical media.
Is it good that there are actual military generals with bonafide combat experience, now running the show? Better, surely, than fellatio on our enemies.
But does that make these same four-stars any wiser than, say, any deadbeat dredged up by Hussein of Surrender? I don't know. Imploding a cave in Afghanishithole and killing what --- 28 mussies? Hey, we wiped out a dozen or so of FRIENDLIES and spent only a fraction!
Quote from: quiller on April 14, 2017, 11:18:07 AM
Well, that one becomes problematic for me, because I don't rate Trump as a conservative, but rather someone quickly adapting to old-fashion instant reversals on policy after actually getting elected. That happens on every presidential watch regardless of party during the honeymoon period; Trump merely gets harped-on more by hypocritical media.
Is it good that there are actual military generals with bonafide combat experience, now running the show? Better, surely, than fellatio on our enemies.
But does that make these same four-stars any wiser than, say, any deadbeat dredged up by Hussein of Surrender? I don't know. Imploding a cave in Afghanishithole and killing what --- 28 mussies? Hey, we wiped out a dozen or so of FRIENDLIES and spent only a fraction!
Quiller, we can rejoice when Trump does the good stuff. We probably both agree, the days of "rejoicing" over Trump are likely to be fewer and fewer... I call it healthy skepticism... we just don't know where he'll settle, or if he's likely to settle on *any* political position.
Quote from: Hoofer on April 14, 2017, 02:58:19 PM
Quiller, we can rejoice when Trump does the good stuff. We probably both agree, the days of "rejoicing" over Trump are likely to be fewer and fewer... I call it healthy skepticism... we just don't know where he'll settle, or if he's likely to settle on *any* political position.
Agree, we'll take what we can get, considering none of us really expected anything Conservative to come out of a Trump Presidency over the next 4 years anyway.
Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2017, 03:07:06 PM
Agree, we'll take what we can get, considering none of us really expected anything Conservative to come out of a Trump Presidency over the next 4 years anyway.
The problem for the GOP is that mention you made "over the next 4 years," and not "through 2024," which implies a second term.
Will they back Trump in 2020? The way the RINO corksockers like Chinless McConnell and Balls-free Ms. Lindsey Graham
(thanks, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: the USSC has decided!) behave, can anyone sane expect them to, no matter HOW successful Trump is militarily, when the same media which fawns on RINOs will help the GOP oust the guy the media has already hated for years?
Oog. Second cup of coffee is indicated....
Quote from: Solar on April 14, 2017, 03:07:06 PM
Agree, we'll take what we can get, considering none of us really expected anything Conservative to come out of a Trump Presidency over the next 4 years anyway.
We are so conditioned to politicians that follow the party line it is difficult to comprehend what is going on when we get a POTUS like Trump. Consequently, as conservatives, we will agree with some of his moves and disagree with others. As long as he puts America first and allows our military to do what they do best I can live with it.
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 04:05:38 AM
The problem for the GOP is that mention you made "over the next 4 years," and not "through 2024," which implies a second term.
Will they back Trump in 2020? The way the RINO corksockers like Chinless McConnell and Balls-free Ms. Lindsey Graham (thanks, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: the USSC has decided!) behave, can anyone sane expect them to, no matter HOW successful Trump is militarily, when the same media which fawns on RINOs will help the GOP oust the guy the media has already hated for years?
Oog. Second cup of coffee is indicated....
I don't expect a second term.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
We are so conditioned to politicians that follow the party line it is difficult to comprehend what is going on when we get a POTUS like Trump. Consequently, as conservatives, we will agree with some of his moves and disagree with others. As long as he puts America first and allows our military to do what they do best I can live with it.
Let's see...where in all of human history have we seen the times when a military junta uses a puppet front man? Better question: will we HAVE a military junta if Trump decides to go fully independent, the very trait you seem to like here. (Not attacking, just observing.)
The purpose of the true conservative is to preserve what is good about America, and open government is good, always, immutably and forever more. He's dead wrong here. Wrong.
Secondly....
Letting the military go in and do what it has spent billions on training and equipment to do...? Why not? Trump is still in his honeymoon days,
almost-but-not-quite like Bush was on 9/11, fresh to his term and vulnerable to attack. We killed a
whole lotta mussies in Iraq on that one. (So sorry, wrong country, oh well you'll breed more.....)
Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2017, 04:58:13 AM
I don't expect a second term.
If
2018 voters continue to pick off RINOs but leave TEA alone, he stands a chance to survive. This presumes that battle-weary deep-pocket Dems forgo the necessary seed money for the 21020 cycle. On the other hand, if Trump's tries to Russia are as deep as some of his immediate associates....
Question, history buffs. Name one government where the military had complete autonomy over a puppet president which
DID end well for its citizens. That's what we're up against if all Trump's talk turns out to be crap just like the worthless trash before him.
YEAR CORRECTED
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 15, 2017, 04:47:54 AM
We are so conditioned to politicians that follow the party line it is difficult to comprehend what is going on when we get a POTUS like Trump. Consequently, as conservatives, we will agree with some of his moves and disagree with others. As long as he puts America first and allows our military to do what they do best I can live with it.
In contrast to the Marxist, Trump was a breath of fresh air in an ocean full of shit after being held under water for 8 years, but we're still drowning in a sea of Marxists with no shore in sight, the upside, we all have a big ass turd to hang onto. :biggrin:
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 05:00:12 AM
Let's see...where in all of human history have we seen the times when a military junta uses a puppet front man? Better question: will we HAVE a military junta if Trump decides to go fully independent, the very trait you seem to like here. (Not attacking, just observing.)
The purpose of the true conservative is to preserve what is good about America, and open government is good, always, immutably and forever more. He's dead wrong here. Wrong.
Secondly....
Letting the military go in and do what it has spent billions on training and equipment to do...? Why not? Trump is still in his honeymoon days, almost-but-not-quite like Bush was on 9/11, fresh to his term and vulnerable to attack. We killed a whole lotta mussies in Iraq on that one. (So sorry, wrong country, oh well you'll breed more.....)
I believe you did not comprehend the intent of my statement about allowing the military to do their job. Trump should be the one who decides policy, but give the military full authority to achieve those policies. We do not need 30 year old WH staffers telling generals how to carry out missions.
Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2017, 05:19:43 AM
the upside, we all have a big ass turd to hang onto. :biggrin:
Close!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswbrktkwqffrsrxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fdgbstgkbxkgdfkfrkk%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201654%2FUnicornFarts500-vi.jpg&hash=3c433c5359f6db3fb8fe05a2b14de7ba19901541)
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 15, 2017, 05:33:59 AM
I believe you did not comprehend the intent of my statement about allowing the military to do their job. Trump should be the one who decides policy, but give the military full authority to achieve those policies. We do not need 30 year old WH staffers telling generals how to carry out missions.
No argument there, and for your clarification that Trump "should be". I presume a different attitude from Hairzilla than you do. Evidently you presume that his generals would follow him no matter what. There are limits to following bad orders, clearly outlined in the UCMJ. And then (presuming they find the
cojones) there is Congress.
We
also don't need a military junta. Should Trump go off the rails, they'd be the ones to stop him, anyway. Can you say they definitely would surrender power, once taken?
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 05:59:37 AM
No argument there, and for your clarification that Trump "should be". I presume a different attitude from Hairzilla than you do. Evidently you presume that his generals would follow him no matter what. There are limits to following bad orders, clearly outlined in the UCMJ. And then (presuming they find the cojones) there is Congress.
We also don't need a military junta. Should Trump go off the rails, they'd be the ones to stop him, anyway. Can you say they definitely would surrender power, once taken?
Uhh, yeah, that worked out so well in Libya, didn't it?
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 05:59:37 AM
No argument there, and for your clarification that Trump "should be". I presume a different attitude from Hairzilla than you do. Evidently you presume that his generals would follow him no matter what. There are limits to following bad orders, clearly outlined in the UCMJ. And then (presuming they find the cojones) there is Congress.
We also don't need a military junta. Should Trump go off the rails, they'd be the ones to stop him, anyway. Can you say they definitely would surrender power, once taken?
I think you are putting a pretty big stretch into this subject. How did we get to a military junta from the POTUS expecting our military leaders do what they do best under the president's policies?
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 05:19:07 AM
If 2018 voters continue to pick off RINOs but leave TEA alone, he stands a chance to survive. This presumes that battle-weary deep-pocket Dems forgo the necessary seed money for the 21020 cycle. On the other hand, if Trump's tries to Russia are as deep as some of his immediate associates....
Question, history buffs. Name one government where the military had complete autonomy over a puppet president which DID end well for its citizens. That's what we're up against if all Trump's talk turns out to be crap just like the worthless trash before him.
YEAR CORRECTED
IMHO, how can the biggest red flag been missed by so many? When Ted was ahead in the polls in IA, Trump went after him and never stopped with lies, deception and insults? Trump had the MSM in his pocket as well as Hannity and Hannity gave him more air time than any other candidate. Trump made a mockery of the campaign process. I still question whether or not he was simply a siphon for the DEMS. He's always been a liberal AND perhaps most importantly he did flip-flops on many issues during his campaign. He obviously made a deal with Priebus and they pushed him through onto the nomination. Next thing we know Trump is president and he names Priebus as his Chief of Staff. His reversals should come as absolutely no surprise, he's been doing this since he jumped into the political arena.
Trump has amassed millions for his run in 4 years. Based on what has already happened in his first 100 days, I'm not so sure he won't be impeached and unfortunately, I don't see us even holding onto the majority in 2018 ... and yes ... Trump's actions have an impact on future races.
Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2017, 06:25:51 AM
Uhh, yeah, that worked out so well in Libya, didn't it?
Okay, what's your point about something that happened under a different president? Really, you lost me. You mean the tent bombing that nearly wasted Quaddafi?
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 15, 2017, 07:52:31 AM
IMHO, how can the biggest red flag been missed by so many? When Ted was ahead in the polls in IA, Trump went after him and never stopped with lies, deception and insults? Trump had the MSM in his pocket as well as Hannity and Hannity gave him more air time than any other candidate. Trump made a mockery of the campaign process. I still question whether or not he was simply a siphon for the DEMS. He's always been a liberal AND perhaps most importantly he did flip-flops on many issues during his campaign. He obviously made a deal with Priebus and they pushed him through onto the nomination. Next thing we know Trump is president and he names Priebus as his Chief of Staff. His reversals should come as absolutely no surprise, he's been doing this since he jumped into the political arena.
Trump has amassed millions for his run in 4 years. Based on what has already happened in his first 100 days, I'm not so sure he won't be impeached and unfortunately, I don't see us even holding onto the majority in 2018 ... and yes ... Trump's actions have an impact on future races.
What has he done or not done that is an impeachable offense?
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 09:06:54 AM
Okay, what's your point about something that happened under a different president? Really, you lost me. You mean the tent bombing that nearly wasted Quaddafi?
Reagan, seriously? Did you sleep through Hussein illegally going to war in Libya to kill an elected leader?
Less we not forget Hillary getting 5 people killed, blaming the entire operation on a video, all designed to cover up weapons smuggling.
Yeah, the generals were all over that illegal move and Congress saw to it that Impeachment followed accordingly. :rolleyes:
Kind of blows your scenario completely out of the water...
Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2017, 10:24:04 AM
Reagan, seriously? Did you sleep through Hussein illegally going to war in Libya to kill an elected leader?
Less we not forget Hillary getting 5 people killed, blaming the entire operation on a video, all designed to cover up weapons smuggling.
Yeah, the generals were all over that illegal move and Congress saw to it that Impeachment followed accordingly. :rolleyes:
Kind of blows your scenario completely out of the water...
First, I didn't follow events in Libya. I have no reason for it: I just didn't do it.
Second, I didn't follow any generals being all over (or not all over, if you were sarcastic) during ANYTHING that happened on Obama's watch. They were lying doggo as far as I could tell.
Here,
QuoteLess we not forget Hillary getting 5 people killed, blaming the entire operation on a video, all designed to cover up weapons smuggling.
I hadn't forgotten. It just never came to mind.
Oh, yeah. The U.S. general who dropped that MOAB did not ask for permission to do so. I repeat my thesis that we need to watch our generals for overstepping their bounds.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-commander-didnt-ask-permission-to-drop-the-mother-of-all-bombs/article/2620309
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
First, I didn't follow events in Libya. I have no reason for it: I just didn't do it.
Second, I didn't follow any generals being all over (or not all over, if you were sarcastic) during ANYTHING that happened on Obama's watch. They were lying doggo as far as I could tell.
Here,
I hadn't forgotten. It just never came to mind.
Oh, yeah. The U.S. general who dropped that MOAB did not ask for permission to do so. I repeat my thesis that we need to watch our generals for overstepping their bounds.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-commander-didnt-ask-permission-to-drop-the-mother-of-all-bombs/article/2620309
Yeah, the Marxist had a leader of a nation executed. Secondly, the Dims claimed the whole thing started over a video, a proven lie, then refused to allow our generals to give the order to save our ambassador and 4 marines, he let them die a horrible death, all the while thinking help would soon be on its way, help stopped by our Marxist CIC.
He then let the enemy escalate their attack while helping the enemy overthrow Qadafi and assassinate him in public, eventually leading to the enemy taking over Libya and giving Alquada a base from which to direct terror plots.
Later we find out it was all a CIA plot to help the enemy attain weapons. Congress sat on its hands and turned a blind eye.
Trump told his generals he wasn't going to micromanage them, that they were free to do what was necessary, within certain constraints along with a mission statement.
This was the point Sup was making, that Trump admits he's out of his league where military strategy is concerned.
Note the difference in the two CIC's, the Marxist told his generals to see to it our enemy would succeed in overthrowing an elected leader (Mission Statement), killed preferably, while helping our enemy. Congress conceded it's duty to enforce the law, or even Impeach after the fact.
One overthrew an entire nation, while the other merely killed the enemy hiding in tunnels.
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 15, 2017, 09:32:10 AM
What has he done or not done that is an impeachable offense?
I didn't state that he has committed an impeachable offense; I just think it's a matter of time before he does. For one he has violated nepotism laws.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 15, 2017, 06:05:13 PM
I didn't state that he has committed an impeachable offense; I just think it's a matter of time before he does. For one he has violated nepotism laws.
This Congress? :lol:
They couldn't organize an Easter egg hunt, assuming they got permission from the Dim party first.
They didn't Impeach Obozo, they surely won't mess with Trump. They're nothing but a bunch of leftist RINO cowards.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 15, 2017, 06:05:13 PM
I didn't state that he has committed an impeachable offense; I just think it's a matter of time before he does. For one he has violated nepotism laws.
Isn't the president exempt from them? What about Bobby Kennedy serving his brother? There is a history of family involvement in the presidency!
Quote from: redbeard on April 15, 2017, 06:13:14 PM
Isn't the president exempt from them? What about Bobby Kennedy serving his brother? There is a history of family involvement in the presidency!
That was different, kennedy was a democrat and dems are exempt from any law.
Quote from: quiller on April 15, 2017, 05:45:30 AM
Close!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Crswbrktkwqffrsrxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fdgbstgkbxkgdfkfrkk%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201654%2FUnicornFarts500-vi.jpg&hash=3c433c5359f6db3fb8fe05a2b14de7ba19901541)
Meh... Why does that picture remind me of Rush Limbaugh's Childrens books?