he did but it was not a priority... but again your criticizing a past choice

based on outcomes that happened years later with the assumption if we hadn't left things would be different .


The issue with trump and syria it the leaving the kurds hanging them out to dry against the Turks because Recep Tayyip Erdoğanand asked (another strong man he likes )

the image we dont help those who help us is the real issue not so much the the fear of ISIS making a comeback because of it

oh, where is it written that we shouldn’t criticize a past choice?

Do you listen to yourself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my god another trigger word !!

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but not a trigger word when WDMSO said it...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can criticize a past choice? all you want

However to use that past choice , in defence of Trump's current choice which is completely different shows a lack of understanding for the reasons people like Mattis and others have walked away

you use whataboutism to defend anything Trump does Asking the senate to change the rules you throw out harry reid as only the dems used it

In recent years, whataboutism made a comeback in Vladimir Putin's Russia, and has also seen a rise in usage by Donald Trump and his support base

Shocking

nope...only in like the last 6 months when you started using the term incessantly :tooth:

Turkey is massing troops near a town in northern Syria held by a U.S.-backed and Kurdish-led force, a war monitor said as Turkish media reported Sunday new reinforcement crossing the borders.

To bad it wasn't I who made that claim

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Analysts have been dinging Trump for whataboutism for months, particularly in recent weeks.

Contradicting Trump, Bolton says no withdrawal from Syria until ISIS destroyed

So Trump lied again???? say it ain't so

Four American soldiers killed today by the defeated ISIS

There will be no outrage like when Clinton was personally held responsible for the deaths in Benghazi

There was none over the 4 in Niger last February and I suspect there will be none for these 4 at the hands of the defeated isis there’s no political benefit for the right.

Unless it’s an illegal who kills a cop they could care less politically
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We were told, over and over in many ways by many Dems, that being over there, warring and killing Muslims, would just lead to the recruitment of more "radicals," jihadists, Al Qaeda, and Isis members. But now, are we to believe that we must be there to kill them in order to stop them from growing. This is confusing.

It is and always will be a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation, but pulling out wholesale and allowing Putin free reign is a mistake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If we pull out after ISIS is totally eliminated, what is preventing Putin from having free reign at that time. Must we always stay there as some kind of buffer against him? Must we always have troops in Europe for the same reason? Must we always have troops in the Pacific Rim?

I'll play a Pete F and ask, isn't there a better way? Is there a road to worldwide free and open trade that peacefully benefits everyone? Is it at least a smidgeon bit possible that something like Trump's sort of mimicking the Teddy Roosevelt notion of walking softly with a big stick in negotiating with adversaries to replace animosity with mutually beneficial economic relations?

Is it that bad to actually, at least try, to convince Russia and China and North Korea to exchange some smaller political gifts that lead to better economic lives for all their people, and doing so without threatening to overthrow them if they do come on board?

And if that fails, maintain the big stick, and let it be known that you'll use it if the preference is to attack us rather than trade with us and our friends.