Trump At The White House This Morning: "We Have To Start Winning Wars!"

Submitted by: fancylad 8 months ago in News & Politics


At a bipartisan gathering of US governors at the White House this morning, Trump revealed his first budget proposal will look to increase defense and security spending by $54 billion and cut about the same about of money from non-defense programs.

CNN got a first-hand report from a Trump administration official that the $54 billion will be cut from the 2018 fiscal year. Multiple officials have also made clear over the this past weekend that the Environmental Protection Agency and foreign aid (foreign aid makes up 1 percent of the national budget) will get the most substantial cuts.
There are 92 comments:
Male 3,579
MORE NUKES.. yeah that'll do it
0
Reply
Male 8,056
Can any sane "Conservative" defend this?
0
Reply
Male 6,185
How many here think that the Trump is going to try nuking the Isis insurgents in Afghanistan with in the next year or two?
0
Reply
Male 601
54 billion being enough to build, the 1000 best universities on earth (at $50 mil a pop), 22,500 miles of moderate speed rail line, and so on... Not that I'm against having a big military, but, you guys, it's fucking big enough already. If this money were put where it could do some good, infrastructure, education, it'd be paying us back 1.5x to 3x in a matter of decades. Instead, sunk cost. All of our money goes to rick companies who employ few people, the American people are worse off, as they are now paying more for security they didn't need.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
thething911 You can build a university for 50M bucks? How odd, since a single sports complex (which all universities have at least 1 of, often 2-5) costs that much alone... just saying to check your maths eh? 

Meanwhile? American universities continue their downward spiral into oblivion and irrelevance. Sad but true.
-1
Reply
Male 6,185
thething911 It could also build enough homes to house all the homeless
0
Reply
Male 4,253
thezigrat Yes and then furnish them and heat and cool them and maintain/repair them and pay the property taxes and water bills on them on them and...
1
Reply
Male 6,185
trimble Still be cheaper than a border wall
0
Reply
Male 6,185
thezigrat Why is he expanding the Military budget by that vast amount. The only reason would be he is planning on starting a major war
0
Reply
Male 1,781
thezigrat The best way to win a war is to start one against an unsuspecting opponent
1
Reply
Male 3,823
ANOTHER 54 BILLION?

It's kinda sad when you think of all the actual good things the country could use that money for..

Doesn't increasing the military budget make you MORE likely to go to war?  You bought all this crap, you might as well use it.. I hear canada has a lotta oil and can use some freedom.
1
Reply
Male 4,253
Sorry fancy but one thing the Dems and GOP have in common is their love of war and that is not going to change. Not knowing that is a big mistake people make.
0
Reply
Male 8,056
trimble I thought Trump was an outsider?  
0
Reply
Male 268
Maybe you guys should check out "Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia". Written by a guy called Dugin and co-authored by a couple of Russian generals. Being used as a text book by Russian military and foreign policy wonks over there.

Basically, Putin's world view and it seems to working out for him so far. Of particular interest to Americans:-

"In the United States:

  • Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
0
Reply
Male 8,056
mikesex Well that book has piqued my interests.  I'll give it a go.
1
Reply
Male 268
normalfreak2 You can get the précis on Wikipedia, 'Foundations of Geopolitics'.
0
Reply
Male 8,056
mikesex Thanks and yes I'm having trouble finding this in a translation form.
0
Reply
Male 268
normalfreak2 If you can source an English version, let us all know. I've only been able to find a range of commentaries on it, although I'm sure the Spooks have read it.
1
Reply
Male 1,042
What I'm seeing here is that he wants to start wars. Not new and we shouldn't let him.
1
Reply
Male 341
2
Reply
Male 3,608
"Dad is Great!  Give us Chocolate Cake!...Dad is Great! Give us Chocolate Cake!"

Hang on everyone, we are headed back in time to when Capitalism beat Communism...and Bill Cosby wasn't a rapist!

Oh and...war is cool!
2
Reply
Male 41,079
kalron27 Obama started enough of them, war was cool for the past 8 years...
-5
Reply
Male 88
5cats Yes, the nerve of Obama starting those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
4
Reply
Male 1,042
Oh boy, her comes the "blame Obama" crew. That excuse gets real old after the Donald keeps making an embarrassment of the republican party day after day. It's particularly pathetic because Obama was one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. I never felt ashamed of him as a real American.
2
Reply
Male 4,253
marsii Love your sarcasm. 

1
Reply
Male 1,042
trimble Remember when Osama Bin Laden died? Gonna take a few moments like that to redeem the ol pussy grab
0
Reply
Male 41,079
trimble He's serious though, that's MARSII the uber-troll...
(I know you're actually the one being sarcastic eh? Lolz nice one!) 
-2
Reply
Male 41,079
marsii He was a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure. What did he do that was so great? 
Killed Bin Laden? Did Obama himself really do that? 
Nearly DOUBLED the US Debt? Which generations of Americans will be paying for? He sure enough did that!
And... what else? 
Oh, he got a Nobel peace Prize after 14 days in Office... and ordered US Citizens killed by drone strikes without any due process at all... peace out!
-4
Reply
495
5cats The prez is not responsible for the debt. Congress sets both revenues and expenditures, and the prez is legally obligated to borrow money to make up the difference.

Of course Congress loves this, because they get to increase expenditure for votes, cut taxes for votes, and then blame the president for the deficit.

For the same reason, the president is not responsible for the debt ceiling.
2
Reply
Male 1,042
barry9a Don't tell the idiot that the wars Bush "won" are still costing us money.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a Prez signs the Bill, Prez takes credit for all the good budgets, simple.

Bush got blamed for all those Democrat Budgets, I don't recall the MSM or you objecting. 
Then along came Obama, spent FOUR TIMES MORE than Bush... but it was the Republicans fault suddenly? Since they had a minority in both houses? I've actually seen IAB Liberals say that.

400% more than Bush spent. Bush = Bad! His fault! Obama = not his fault. Really?
0
Reply
495
5cats what is it with the conservatives on this site and "I don't remember you complaining about [insert thing from 15 years ago, before we ever met]"?

But like it or not, the prez is not responsible for the budget and any shortfalls. Whether it's Bush, Obama, or Trump, they don't set the budget. They are the executive, they execute. The legislature is the party that legislates. Deciding on taxes is definitely a matter of creating legislation.

It's not a bloody us versus them, repubs versus dems issue. I didn't even hint at political affiliation in my comment, so I have no idea why you're injecting it now to attack me.

Yes, the budget deficit is Congress's fault, regardless of who currently controls Congress.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a The "you" is both specific and universal, eh? Lolz!
I mean I've never once seen IAB Liberals apply ANY of these standards to ANY Democrat, not even once!
Yet Republicans get held to equal standards by 'conservatives' ALL the time! Very few exceptions.
A big scandal = Republican resigns or is kicked out of the party.
A big scandal = Democrat blames the conservatives for it, the MSM covers up for him and he or she gets promoted.

It has become "us vs them" because of the liberal-left's complete and utter intolerance for ONE WORD of deviation from their hard line. The right-conservatives are sick and tired of being name-called for asking legitimate, proper questions. The left's double standards have never been more obvious.

Obama pushed for the Bills that caused the Trillion Dollar Deficits for those years, and he signed them. His fault.
0
Reply
495
5cats It's disturbing how much you've swallowed your own propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
One does not fight a war to "end it". One fights a war to WIN it. 

Anyone can end a war: lay down your arms and surrender unconditionally. It's over, congratulations.
-5
Reply
Male 41,079
Bush ended the war in Iraq, it was over, America and the free people of Iraq won.

Obama lost it though, now much of Iraq is back under the rule of Jihadists.
Obama lost in Libya, again it's mostly over-run with Jihadists.
Obama lost in Yemen, see above.
Obam lost in Syria by doing nothing but talk shit. He had to BEG the Russians for help! And they did help... support Assad who America was trying to depose. Now they are bombing the Shiite out of the guys America tried (belatedly) to help and it was Obama that allowed that to happen. "More flexability" is what OBAMA promised Putin, remember?

There's probably more (Iran, China) but that's enough for now.
-8
Reply
Male 3,579
5cats hilarious. such wisdom in these comments
0
Reply
495
5cats dude, 'Mission Accomplished' was May 1 2003. Obama didn't take office until Jan 20, 2009 - Dubya had an entire presidential term and a half between these two dates.
2
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a You are getting D- in history class, yes?
I'm CLEARLY talking about two ENTIRELY separate things.

The initial invasion 'ended' for Gulf-II in May 2003, correct. That BATTLE was over. Then came the next phase of THE WAR which was the battle against the insurgency. Bush won that BATTLE with The Surge and thus ended the war... Bush began pulling out US Troops but his term ended before that was completed.
When another power invaded Iraq? And Obama did nothing? Because OBAMA had pulled out all the American combat troops? That is a new battle, a new war that Obama started through is inaction and ineptitude. 
Facts dude.
-2
Reply
Male 375
5cats "Bush ended the war in Iraq, it was over, America and the free people of Iraq won." 5cats, do you really think that the actions of the Bush administration were successful and that Obama is solely responsible for Iraq being the mess that it is today? I am being completely serious, here. For the record, I don't believe Obama had a good Iraq policy, so deflecting to Obama won't work. I'm concerned with Bush's actions and Bush's actions alone on this. What say you?
2
Reply
Male 1,042
mrsnowmeiser We ever find those WMD's? They still in Jordan or wherever? Biggest fuckup of the last two decades and they try to pass the buck.
1
Reply
Male 41,079
marsii Yes, actually, they know exactly where they all went now. 
Don't try to change the subject, Obama lost the war that America (and your allies) had won.
-4
Reply
Male 41,079
mrsnowmeiser Yes.
Thanks for asking politely! Longer answer? Ok...

Obama followed the exit strategy Bush laid out to the letter, up to the point where the final disposition of troops remaining was to be negotiated. That was planned too btw.

Everyone involved said 5,000 to 20,000 US Combat Troops (keyword) remain for an indefinite period. Everyone except Obama, who said Zero, and that's what happened. Obama said Iraq was ready for anything, no need for US Troops at all.

So when under 3,000 poorly armed Jihadists came over the border? Facing (iirc) 30,000 or more Iraqi combat troops? There were Zero US combat troops and the non-combat units were under strict orders to let the Iraqis handle everything.
Iraq's army folded like a house of cards in a tornado, handing over thousands of pieces of equipment the US had given them. Tanks, jets, artillery, Humvees, ammunition, heavy equipment of all sorts. 

So NOW the ISIL there have all that stuff and are putting up a stiff resistance to Iraq's "retrained" army's attempts to get them out. Thanks 100% to Obama's decisions. Ok?
-4
Reply
Male 375
5cats You didn't address my question. I was no fan of the Obama policies, either, which I mentioned above. I was asking about Bush's policies. Specifically in regards to the following points. 1) taking out the Iraqi leadership despite not having any experts on Iraq working on future Iraqi policy/leadership (Paul Bremer comes to mind). 2) dismantling the Iraqi security forces despite being warned that doing so came with a high chance of them becoming radicalized once the situation became sour (which it, and they, did). 3) having no foreign policy grand strategy, 4) not being able or willing to sufficiently rebuild Iraq's infrastructure once we destroyed much of it and 4) not being able to stem the rising tide of terrorist attacks (although the surge did greatly aid this, but not solve it). These are all actions Bush took which greatly exacerbated Iraq and never needed to happen at all if Iraq was not invaded. I don't see how you can seriously debate the above points, but I welcome the effort, if you are willing. 
0
Reply
Male 3,608
mrsnowmeiser Here I'll give you an answer.  Bush Senior didn't "finish" his "war" (or better phrased as: Oil Reallocation) but Chaney sure as hell "finished" that "war". W was just along for the ride.  Obama had an "unwinnable" mess to clean up.  How good of job he did with that is questionable...how well would have anyone done?

No, what we are seeing here is the re-ignition of the Cold War.  Two large countries spending billions on defense at the cost of the rest of the world...all for Man-Cheeto-smo.
2
Reply
Male 41,079
kalron27 He won. The insurgency was crushed by 'The Surge' which was a dangerous plan that worked perfectly, due to the outstanding quality of the US Combat Forces. Bush gave orders to pull out troops at a reasonable pace (unlike Vietnam eh?)... the MSM criticized him... sigh!
-6
Reply
495
5cats There was no "5-20 thousand US combat troops indefinitel". Bush signed into legislation that ALL troops were to be withdrawn by end 2011.

Facing a hostile Congress from the 2010 midterms, Obama couldn't change this even if he wanted to.

As for Vietnam, US combat troops left two years before the fall of Saigon, and there had been gradual reductions for four years up to that point - from a peak of half a million in '69, to 330k in late '70, to 160k in late '71, to all gone in early '73.
1
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a Except that's wrong. They negotiated finishing the withdrawal under Obama, not Bush.

The PLAN is not written in stone dude, it's not a constitutional amendment FFS... ANY President can change the plan if he wanted to, even the Generals told Obama to leave SOME Combat Troops, so did Iraq's government.

Edit: Adding: A "hostile Congress" going into 2010 elections? You mean the Democrat super-majority congress? The Democrat majority Senate? LOLZ try to get one fact straight dude, you're a joke now.

ALL US Combat Troops were withdrawn by August 2010, that's before the elections, ok? Democrat President, Democrat House, Democrat Senate. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#August_2010_partial_withdrawal

0
Reply
495
5cats jesus fuck man, do you even listen to yourself? I said "FROM the 2010 midterms" and you change that to "GOING INTO 2010" just so you can take a pop at me. It's just typical of how you wilfully twist everything.

Throw in that you say ALL US Combat Troops (your emphasis) were withdrawn in Aug 2010, and even your own fucking link has it right there in the URL that that was a partial withdrawal. Look at the very next section in your own fucking link and you'll see that the full withdrawal was in Oct 2011.

I just don't understand why you persist in making this ridiculously clumsy twists of facts. 
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a Yes, you said it came AFTER the Mid-terms, which is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You claim Republicans are to blame, not Obama. WRONG AGAIN!

"From the mid-terms" means 'after them' in the English language. Correct?
The Mid-terms were Nov. 2010, yes? Correct?

Then the withdrawal came BEFORE the mid-terms, idiot, so you CANNOT POSSIBLY blame a 'hostile (Repub) House' for the withdrawl, ok? Get it? They hadn't been elected yet! It was Democrats, all 3 levels, and a House super-majority to boot. 

Twisting facts? At least I KNOW the facts! You've ignored reality and fucking made shit up JUST to blame Republicans or 'apologize' for your boy, Obama... and failed so completely it's mind boggling...
0
Reply
495
5cats Even your own fucking link says the last combat troops were pulled out october 2011. I can't believe I have to say this, but october 2011 was AFTER the 2010 mid-terms.

The 'facts' you 'know' are worthless, even when compared only against your own sources.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a The last COMBAT UNITS were withdrawn in AUGUST 2010 you ignorant cunt. August 2010, it's right there in the fucking TITLE. That is the subject, combat units. Not 'any military persons' you stupid shit.

Even if your 'argument' had any merit? Which it does not, since it's stupid. The FACTS are saying you are 100% wrong. 
0
Reply
495
5cats Okay, I apologise. Combat troops, but not all troops.

Which title is it in, by the way? "August 2010 partial withdrawal"? "Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq"? Which title mentions combat troops?

Come on, you keep telling us how you're always right, and this should be an easy one - which
title are you referring to?

0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a The title of the link, I can read it, can't you? Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#August_2010_partial_withdrawal

I said: August 2010 is in the title. Full stop, end of sentence. I did not say the words 'combat troops' were in the title, I said combat troops was the subject of the link. I said that the link CLEARLY says combat troops (not all military personnel, that's why it was a 'partial' withdrawal ok?) were completely withdrawn by August 2010. Simple.

 August 2010, it's right there in the fucking TITLE.
 
Wow, you're a really sore loser. Can't even apologize without pissing yourself in impotent hate... you were right, it IS AN EASY ONE once you learn how to fucking read.
0
Reply
495
5cats You really are a sad cunt. Yes, 'August 2010' is in the title, But your other term, the one I referenced, the one you capitalised, 'Combat Troops', is not in the title. You know what is in the title? 'Partial withdrawal', right after 'August 2010'. "august 2010 partial withdrawal" doesn't sound like "all combat troops were completely rmoved by august 2010" now, does it?

At least I fucking gave something of an apology after re-reading the text, rather than take every fucking opportunity to dig myself deeper and deeper into a hole. Of course, 5cats can't ever be a sore loser, because 5cats never admits defeat, even when his own words are returned to him.

Fuck knows why you measure your self-worth by how much you don't support a political party in a different country.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a Once more again: I NEVER SAID that 'Combat Troops' was in the title. I said "August 2010", so stop bullshitting. The words 'combat troops' are in a SEPERATE SENTENCE where I'm talking about the CONTENT of the link, not its title.

If you HAD READ the fuvking link? It clearly states that ALL COMBAT TROOPS were withdrawn by August 2010. Which proves I am/was absolutely correct.

Were ALL US troops gone at that date? NO! And I never once said they were. Some remained in various roles, that's why it was a partial withdrawal of military personnel, ok? I was very specifically talking about COMBAT TROOPS which were ALL gone. Got it yet?
So no, I am not 'wrong' in any way. Fuck you too!
0
Reply
495
5cats 

I like how on the one hand, you bitch at me for not reading the title, and on the other hand, the important information is actually in the link text, not the title. I also like how you keep squirming around the 'partial withdrawal' in the title - funny how the 'august 2010' in the title is so important, but you so steadfastly ignore the rest of the phrase...

But then of course, you also think that the troop reductions in Vietnam weren't done steadily over the course of years. Just making shit up and picking and choosing the 'facts' you like.

You're a vapid hypocrite, buddy.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
barry9a What the actual fuck are you talking about?

You think the title of a link should ALSO contain ALL the information from the link? WTF?

I said the DATE is even IN the title, you didn't even need to open it to see that it is August 2010, NOT after the election, which is what you claimed.
 
Squirming? Fuck no. They are TWO separate things: combat troops were withdrawn on that date, this is what I said and it is a fact you cannot refute. But were ALL troops (military personnel) gone? No! Some NON-combat units remained. Thus I am right even though American 'troops' stayed until (iirc) December.

Since I did not SAY "all troops' but SPECIFICALLY SAID 'combat troops' you can go fuck a duck. Because Obama withdrew ALL the COMBAT TROOPS is the REASON ISIL over-ran half of Iraq. There still were a handful of American troops there, but with strict orders not to fight, and having NO real weapons to fight with. ie: non-combat.

But then of course, you also think that the troop reductions in Vietnam weren't done steadily over the course of years. Just making shit up and picking and choosing the 'facts' you like.

Wow! You JUST MADE SHIT UP about me and then attacked me for it? Fuck you.

You're a vapid hypocrite, buddy.

There you go! Insults work so much better than facts, eh? When you have no facts at all that is... 

How am I a hypocrite? I said combat troops, I proved combat troops. I said before the election, I proved before the election. YOU were wrong and that makes me a hypocrite? Go fuck yourself. 
0
Reply
Male 530
Somebody PLEASE piss test this crackhead.
2
Reply
Male 797
Just so we're keeping tabs, respectful to say "I prefer people who weren't captured", and That we at some point have not some point "stopped winning wars", despite the many who died in the process. An operation ends somewhat unfavorably it's disrespectful to those who died in that operation to claim it's anything, but successful. Practice free thought, support is wonderful blind support helps no one.
2
Reply
Male 6,185
mischeif954 Well said
0
Reply
Male 6,153
bring it on bro.  just 4 words:

  • death
  • to
  • the
  • presidency

i'm waiting.
-2
Reply
Male 530
monkwarrior From what I can see,Trump will be the last president.

1
Reply
Male 163
I have a hard time wrapping my head around his overall game strategy.
2
Reply
Male 1,042
theman01 Do what feels good seems to sum it up.
0
Reply
Male 163
marsii Isn't there a Simpsons episode about that :)
1
Reply
Male 6,185
theman01 I'm waiting on him nuking Iraq then his pundents  saying "Well Obama did it too"
1
Reply
Male 163
thezigrat The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

0
Reply
Male 957
I wouldn't mind what the US decided to do, except we live right next door and we're between the US/Russia and the US/North Korea (Nukes'll go over the pole)
1
Reply
Male 8,056
We only spend more than the next 8 countries combined.  WE need to spend more than the next 10 countries combined!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/
1
Reply
Male 1,042
normalfreak2 Almost 100x our science budget.
1
Reply
Male 530
normalfreak2 8 of those 10 are allies.Duh.
0
Reply
Male 8,056
Can't wait until we start a war with Iran!  We are going to win that bitch.
3
Reply
Male 1,042
normalfreak2 Which excuse you think they'll lead with? Nukes or terrorists?
1
Reply
Male 6,185
marsii Nuking terrorists
0
Reply
Male 347
 Not sure what he means by "we have to start winning wars again". Does he mean making sure that wars the USA are currently involved in (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen...) are ended with a US victory, or does he mean making sure the upcoming wars are to be won, and what are his targets?
3
Reply
Male 1,042
m3dm3d He means start some easy ones for practice. Watch out Canada.
0
Reply
Male 6,185
m3dm3d He means winning all the new ones he starts
0
Reply
Male 97
thezigrat Bingo.  In the last month alone, there have been wars against reproductive rights, immigrants (at least those to whom he is not married), religions, trans teens, the environment (EPA), the media, the internet (FCC), and schooling.  While i'm sure there are more, those came to mind first.
1
Reply
Male 2,703
A good way to end wars is to win them.
-3
Reply
Male 601
dromed Yes, let's tell the Koreans that, the Vietnamese. Japan sure learned their fucking lesson, right? Dickhead
0
Reply
Male 1,197
dromed or just not get in to them in the first place, seeing as most of them have nothing to do with us just us sticking our noses in other people business.  Joining a war that is none of your business in the first place means you already lost, so to win, just stop getting involved.
1
Reply
Male 41,079
waldo863 Look how great that worked in Syria! LOOK AT IT. All Obama, all of it. You cannot 'Blame Bush' for that one at all... so the MSM pretends it 'just happened' and that probably the Jews did it...
And Libya... yeah that was great too.
And Yemen... 
And giving Iran (Death To America!) the Atomic Bomb, guaranteed, and getting nothing in return? Obama even had to PAY RANSOM to get SOME of the hostages released afterwards... ffs...
-4
Reply
Male 375
5cats Actually, Bush can directly be blamed partially for Syria. ISIS started in the vacuum of power left over from his decision to invade (illegally) in the first place. Can you seriously tell me that if we didn't go into Iraq that ISIS would even exist at this point?  History matters. 
0
Reply
Male 1,197
5cats I'm not too sure what you are saying and not sure where I mentioned Bush either.  However, when and why has Syria attacked the US?  Sorry, I can't keep up with all the foreign countries and whose doing what and really don't care to.  I know there's a civil war in Syria, but that's about it.  What does that Civil War have to do with us and why are we involved though?  
0
Reply
Male 41,079
waldo863 People are fond of Blaming Bush for everything Obama did wrong, lolz! Syria is (amazingly!) no exception.
Obama failed to step in and help in the civil war back when it could have been ended with a minimal loss of life.
In Libya's civil war? He sent the troops in over the RUMOUR of 'possible massacres' that might happen, but didn't ever. 
See the difference? Actual massacres and use of chemical weapons on civilians? Obama sat on his ass. France's oil rights were threatened in Libya? Obama sent the army in...
0
Reply
Male 1,197
5cats Ok, so what did they do to us?  Nothing?  Then why we shouldn't have gotten involved at all in either of them.  I don't give a fuck if it was Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, whoever the fuck did it I don't give a damn.  Why are we involving ourselves in other people civil wars?  If your neighbor is yelling at his wife, do you go get involved?  Hell no.  Maybe call the cops if it looks serious, but you don't get yourself involved.  Same thing here.  Someone in the world is fighting with themselves, do you get involved?  Hell no.  Leave them the fuck alone.  They have their drama, let them keep it, don't want to be involved.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
waldo863 But Obama DID get you involved! So 'your point' is MOOT. He got America into 3 wars, plus lost Iraq and had to re-start that war too. That's 4, and he lost all 4 of them.
Bush started 2 and won 1, the other is still undecided for both bush and Obama.
Trump has started... none!

And the rest of the world should just sit back and do nothing? As atrocities and chemical weapons are used against civilians? Yet the liberals are pushing to bring tons of (un-vetted) refugees into various nations, that effects us all directly enough yes? I think so.

Call the cops if it looks serious? And who might "the cops" be? Russia? That's who Obama called for help. Certainly not the UN...
-2
Reply
Male 1,197
5cats Wait, where did I mention Obama?  Again, as I said, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHO OR WHAT PARTY DID IT, IT'S WRONG.  

And yeah, we as the rest of the world should just sit back.  Are those civilians American Citizens?  Then why the fuck should our government be protecting them?  Are they paying taxes in America?  Refugees?  Unless we are letting them in to our country, which we shouldn't be, no, it does not affect us.

I was referring to like my next door neighbor with the cops statement.  Yeah, when our neighboring countries in the world are being stupid, there are no police to call.  Just let them work it out.  It's none of our business, just like it's not my business when the lady down the street is walking down the street crying with her boyfriend/husband following her down the street yelling.  NOT MY BUSINESS.

Aren't you Canadian anyway?  Why don't you go work on getting your country involved in these civil wars of other countries.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
waldo863 I am, and we were, you are again showing a complete ignorance of history, dude. 

America, France and UK "stayed out" of Germany's civil war in the 30's and Spain's as well. (USSR was VERY much involved in both though!) Look how well that turned out.
-1
Reply
Male 2,703
waldo863 Feel better after that?  Gee, thanks for the history lesson.  You're bloody fucking brilliant.  I'd have never thought of that.
-5
Reply
Male 1,197
dromed Did your post make you feel better?  I'm sure no one anywhere in the world ever knew that winning a war ends it.  Great info there buddy.  Oh, and:
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2017/02/fuck-you-in-c-minor

1
Reply