Syria

[Pete F.]

Four American soldiers killed today by the defeated ISIS

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Four American soldiers killed today by the defeated ISIS

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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.