ChatterBank1 min ago
Has Trump Joined The Neocons?
Only days before last November’s election, Trump told a crowd in Florida that Hillary Clinton “wants to start a shooting war in Syria…that could very well lead to World War III.”
Pshh!
Having supported him so far (to the disapproval of many ABers), I no longer can, and ironically these detractors and armchair warriors seem now to be on his side.
Pshh!
Having supported him so far (to the disapproval of many ABers), I no longer can, and ironically these detractors and armchair warriors seem now to be on his side.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, to be fair, you've had plenty of warnings that he isn't a trustworthy or honest candidate. He's always done or said essentially whatever he needs to in order to win people over. That's what a populist does by definition. I very much doubt this is the start of a consistent foreign policy, I imagine it'll waver all over the place for the next four years depending on what the President thinks is popular.
I am not "team Trump" and never have been, precisely because I think he's a dishonest, unstable con-man. On the balance of information available to me, I thought his strike on Syria last week was probably the right thing to do (though I know less about the Afghanistan one so cannot really comment). This is hardly a wholesale reversal as it doesn't really have any bearing on the major problems I've always had with him.
The way I look at it is - a terrible president made one good decision and is still a terrible president. A broken clock may be right twice a day, but you wouldn't put it on your wall.
I am not "team Trump" and never have been, precisely because I think he's a dishonest, unstable con-man. On the balance of information available to me, I thought his strike on Syria last week was probably the right thing to do (though I know less about the Afghanistan one so cannot really comment). This is hardly a wholesale reversal as it doesn't really have any bearing on the major problems I've always had with him.
The way I look at it is - a terrible president made one good decision and is still a terrible president. A broken clock may be right twice a day, but you wouldn't put it on your wall.
I'm neither cheered nor depressed by it: i merely note that here's another attempt to carry out what he promised. Albeit one of the better aims. I'm just surprised you're surprised, I mean when he said he intended going after IS what did you think he was going to do: leer and pout at them very hard? A terrifying enough prospect I admit ...
How is attacking the Syrian air force base 'going after isis'?
There are only two choices in Syria, an Isis Islamic state ruling by sharia law with mayhem both at home and with all its neighbours, or Assad who may not be the most democratic of rulers, but he is not, nor has ever been a threat to anyone else, whereas isis' Islamic control would wish to call for the death and destruction of all other non Sunni groups including Christians and the complete annihilation of Israel.
Which would you prefer?
With reference to the MOAB attack in Afghanistan; 30 killed and 300 new recruits! (their tunnels by the way were originally paid for by the Americans).
There are only two choices in Syria, an Isis Islamic state ruling by sharia law with mayhem both at home and with all its neighbours, or Assad who may not be the most democratic of rulers, but he is not, nor has ever been a threat to anyone else, whereas isis' Islamic control would wish to call for the death and destruction of all other non Sunni groups including Christians and the complete annihilation of Israel.
Which would you prefer?
With reference to the MOAB attack in Afghanistan; 30 killed and 300 new recruits! (their tunnels by the way were originally paid for by the Americans).
If it's any comfort to you, the reported death toll from the Afghan bomb has risen to over 90, making it 2.5 times more cost-effective, although maybe it needs to have taken a few hundred militants out before you stop moaning about that side of things.
Anyway, your last point is wrong. One right decision doesn't mean total support -- and anyway whether his actions in Syria or Afghanistan were "right" is still open to question. Even if it were right to respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons, the speed of the decision still seems to me to show Trump in a bad light.
You can remove the "neo" part, though. He's just a con. Always has been.
Anyway, your last point is wrong. One right decision doesn't mean total support -- and anyway whether his actions in Syria or Afghanistan were "right" is still open to question. Even if it were right to respond to Assad's use of chemical weapons, the speed of the decision still seems to me to show Trump in a bad light.
You can remove the "neo" part, though. He's just a con. Always has been.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Road rules10 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Body & Soul12 mins ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.