|
Post by Anonymous poster on Apr 9, 2017 1:00:43 GMT -5
where has this been said? there is no official statement that says these airstrikes were part of a comprehensive plan to remove assad. only time will tell if that is the case (as we would never come right out and say that which would piss off putin big time). i don't personally believe that was the point of these strikes. trump said the strikes were strictly in response to assad violating chemical weapons bans already in place. i hope that isn't the case and this isn't just a one and done pinpoint strike. i hope it is part of a comprehensive plan for the region. as baph said, this is a very complex issue. lots of factions, lots of territories, and lots of crazies. do you risk ousting assad only to have ISIS fill the power void (which would piss off putin/china/pretty much the rest of the world)? if the plan is to oust assad and have kurds assume power, it would almost undoubtedly involve troops on the ground (which i'm sure russia would have a huge problem with). support for that internationally and domestically would not be there. i don't know what the answer is, but i also know we can't just give the middle east to putin. i think/hope trump is starting to see that an isolationist ideology is simplistic and just not realistic. My reference was not specific to this one incident, rather to our intentions when we get involved in general. I am not for war and wish we would let all of these dune coons eradicate each other, however we do get involved when innocent people are being harmed. Assad uses force to stamp out any uprising that may threaten his power or control... and never has any intentions of using his assets to save helpless people. The anonymous poster was trying to compare the two on the same level which is an immaculate way to approach it I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, places that are far worse now than before helping. If you don't see that the US military is Saudi Arabia's little bitch, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think then US would squash your "innocent" ass if you and your freedom fighters tried to overrhrow it, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah innocent people die, but why are the innocent people Assad kills more important than the ones the US kills. I'll tell you why because the news tells you Why doesn't the US care about some of the worst dictators in the middle east, Saudi Arabia? They have Shariah law they kill guys by the hundreds, honor killings, public beheadings. All things Saddam did. Cause the US is Saudi Arabia's lap dog
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Apr 9, 2017 1:43:47 GMT -5
My reference was not specific to this one incident, rather to our intentions when we get involved in general. I am not for war and wish we would let all of these dune coons eradicate each other, however we do get involved when innocent people are being harmed. Assad uses force to stamp out any uprising that may threaten his power or control... and never has any intentions of using his assets to save helpless people. The anonymous poster was trying to compare the two on the same level which is an immaculate way to approach it I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Every major country picks and chooses, and does so for non-domestic reasons. We are stuck dealing with it. Hell look at Obama, he spread out non-domestic interference more than any other president while not spreading it to countries that are closed off restrained.
|
|
|
Post by DeafDeathMetal on Apr 9, 2017 2:06:55 GMT -5
I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Every major country picks and chooses, and does so for non-domestic reasons. We are stuck dealing with it. Hell look at Obama, he spread out non-domestic interference more than any other president while not spreading it to countries that are closed off restrained. I have a job for you Angelo. Find out how much money is spent helping other countries vs how much money is spent domestically, including corporate welfare and subsidiaries. Wanting to help your own people is being a socialist, helping other countries and well, we cant and wont do anything about it. Cowards is what you are, use those guns for somthings other than target practice and polishing them. Your non existant son was born with 42K worth of debt and nobody is ever going to do a god damn thing about it. Well see how much Trump's first year of being at war compares to Obama and Bush.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Apr 9, 2017 2:20:09 GMT -5
Every major country picks and chooses, and does so for non-domestic reasons. We are stuck dealing with it. Hell look at Obama, he spread out non-domestic interference more than any other president while not spreading it to countries that are closed off restrained. I have a job for you Angelo. Find out how much money is spent helping other countries vs how much money is spent domestically, including corporate welfare and subsidiaries. Wanting to help your own people is being a socialist, helping other countries and well, we cant and wont do anything about it. Cowards is what you are, use those guns for somthings other than target practice and polishing them. Your non existant son was born with 42K worth of debt and nobody is ever going to do a god damn thing about it. Well see how much Trump's first year of being at war compares to Obama and Bush. Dude, I've been calling for redirecting US focus for 15 years now? We need to focus on domestic first because it bleeds over internationally. It is why I've been saying we need a Quasi-public healthcare system and need to invest heavily into education. I've gone so far as I'm looking into starting up a charity to save art programs in American high schools. Figured out a way to cut cost, I'm getting ready to file for a 503c soon even. So much of our "natural" debt is artificial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 9:33:57 GMT -5
My reference was not specific to this one incident, rather to our intentions when we get involved in general. I am not for war and wish we would let all of these dune coons eradicate each other, however we do get involved when innocent people are being harmed. Assad uses force to stamp out any uprising that may threaten his power or control... and never has any intentions of using his assets to save helpless people. The anonymous poster was trying to compare the two on the same level which is an immaculate way to approach it I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, places that are far worse now than before helping. If you don't see that the US military is Saudi Arabia's little bitch, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think then US would squash your "innocent" ass if you and your freedom fighters tried to overrhrow it, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah innocent people die, but why are the innocent people Assad kills more important than the ones the US kills. I'll tell you why because the news tells you Why doesn't the US care about some of the worst dictators in the middle east, Saudi Arabia? They have Shariah law they kill guys by the hundreds, honor killings, public beheadings. All things Saddam did. Cause the US is Saudi Arabia's lap dog So based on your post we should be more involved internationally since Saudi Arabia is that bad? I know your answer is no, but it helps your argument to make the us look like it has bad intentions. We can't go to war/conflict with Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China... they are off limits and the best we can hope for is to stay far enough ahead of them economically and militarily so they are forced to stay somewhat in line with us or our best interests. On the other hand we can fuck with Syria, Iraq and others if they deserve it. This will serve multiple purposes... punish a negative action, show our citizens that our military and it's massive budget is there for good will and necessary policing, and show the other big countries that we are still the baddest fuckers around. I am guessing the recent missile strikes were as much to punish Assad as they were to show Putin that trump is not the pussie Obama was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 9:48:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 9, 2017 10:22:47 GMT -5
My reference was not specific to this one incident, rather to our intentions when we get involved in general. I am not for war and wish we would let all of these dune coons eradicate each other, however we do get involved when innocent people are being harmed.Assad uses force to stamp out any uprising that may threaten his power or control... and never has any intentions of using his assets to save helpless people. The anonymous poster was trying to compare the two on the same level which is an immaculate way to approach it assad killed thousands before this latest chemical attack and we had done nothing. i agree, if this were solely about the middle east and involved only middle eastern players, yeah, leave them to their own devices. 20, 30, 50 years ago, you could get away with that line of thinking. now? it's much more complex. russia's involvement in the region changes everything. I heard a pretty surprising argument along these lines a while back. I've always been STAUNCHLY anti-interventionist, but I heard a very blunt, very compelling P. J. O'Rourke lay out the "yes, it's all about oil like the left screams, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid reason, and here's why" deal . . . and having Iran, Russia, and China control 75% of the world's energy supply has some pretty significant political, trade, economic, and military implications and you can pretty easily lay out a few scenarios where shit gets WAY off the rails and these nations are exactly the kinds of folks to push that envelope. You think America is big and bad and pushy? Wait till Iran and Russia and China have the world's lifeblood by the short and curlies and their stooges like North Korea and Syria can act with near impunity. You can talk about ethics all you want, but bowing out potentially jeopardizes global economic stability and fucks up the stock market. That's just not an option. Yes, we're greedy. Yes, we like relative stability and gradual, linear growth. Yes, our cars and trucks and lights run on oil. Sue us.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 9, 2017 10:31:07 GMT -5
Obama dropped 26,000 bombs on Syria. Trump is currently at 59.
Tell me again how dangerous this is and how outraged you are.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Apr 9, 2017 11:05:31 GMT -5
Obama dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone. 23,000 in 2015. These numbers include the defined "single strike" which counts as ONE when in fact may be many, so the numbers are low. It's good to have these conversations so it inspires us to look some of this shit up and learn (I had no context for how many bombs we are dropping until now).
I would like to hear more about how Trump is the backer of the military industrial complex, a war monger, here to help all the companies profiteer from war, etc. Maybe he is, but if the comparison is to Obama then it's looking pretty foolish to make that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Apr 9, 2017 11:11:41 GMT -5
I have a job for you Angelo. Find out how much money is spent helping other countries vs how much money is spent domestically, including corporate welfare and subsidiaries. Wanting to help your own people is being a socialist, helping other countries and well, we cant and wont do anything about it. Cowards is what you are, use those guns for somthings other than target practice and polishing them. Your non existant son was born with 42K worth of debt and nobody is ever going to do a god damn thing about it. Well see how much Trump's first year of being at war compares to Obama and Bush. Dude, I've been calling for redirecting US focus for 15 years now? We need to focus on domestic first because it bleeds over internationally. It is why I've been saying we need a Quasi-public healthcare system and need to invest heavily into education. I've gone so far as I'm looking into starting up a charity to save art programs in American high schools. Figured out a way to cut cost, I'm getting ready to file for a 503c soon even. So much of our "natural" debt is artificial. Fucking gold. It's rare I shake my head at the lies you spill on the keyboard because you have so, so many, but this actually made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by adamg01 on Apr 9, 2017 11:35:24 GMT -5
I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, places that are far worse now than before helping. If you don't see that the US military is Saudi Arabia's little bitch, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think then US would squash your "innocent" ass if you and your freedom fighters tried to overrhrow it, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah innocent people die, but why are the innocent people Assad kills more important than the ones the US kills. I'll tell you why because the news tells you Why doesn't the US care about some of the worst dictators in the middle east, Saudi Arabia? They have Shariah law they kill guys by the hundreds, honor killings, public beheadings. All things Saddam did. Cause the US is Saudi Arabia's lap dog So based on your post we should be more involved internationally since Saudi Arabia is that bad? I know your answer is no, but it helps your argument to make the us look like it has bad intentions. We can't go to war/conflict with Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China... they are off limits and the best we can hope for is to stay far enough ahead of them economically and militarily so they are forced to stay somewhat in line with us or our best interests. On the other hand we can fuck with Syria, Iraq and others if they deserve it. This will serve multiple purposes... punish a negative action, show our citizens that our military and it's massive budget is there for good will and necessary policing, and show the other big countries that we are still the baddest fuckers around. I am guessing the recent missile strikes were as much to punish Assad as they were to show Putin that trump is not the pussie Obama was. Merica fuck yeah! If God didn't want us pushing our agenda overseas he wouldn't have gave us the USMC!
|
|
Pick&ChooseDeathMetal
Guest
|
Post by Pick&ChooseDeathMetal on Apr 9, 2017 11:41:13 GMT -5
www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/us-drone-strikes-have-gone-up-432-since-trump-took-officeSo just because he's not bombing Syria doesn't mean that he's not bombing at all. Gee you guys are selective. I'll use the same argument you guys use... "He's not even at a 100 days in office", yet his drone strikes are up 432%. This is were Baph's partisanship is showing. He would rail against Obama for his drone strikes every opportunity he'd get and what about Trump's? Crickets
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous poster on Apr 9, 2017 11:51:42 GMT -5
I'm saying that the US picks and chooses which innocent people it wants to help. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, places that are far worse now than before helping. If you don't see that the US military is Saudi Arabia's little bitch, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think then US would squash your "innocent" ass if you and your freedom fighters tried to overrhrow it, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah innocent people die, but why are the innocent people Assad kills more important than the ones the US kills. I'll tell you why because the news tells you Why doesn't the US care about some of the worst dictators in the middle east, Saudi Arabia? They have Shariah law they kill guys by the hundreds, honor killings, public beheadings. All things Saddam did. Cause the US is Saudi Arabia's lap dog So based on your post we should be more involved internationally since Saudi Arabia is that bad? I know your answer is no, but it helps your argument to make the us look like it has bad intentions. We can't go to war/conflict with Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China... they are off limits and the best we can hope for is to stay far enough ahead of them economically and militarily so they are forced to stay somewhat in line with us or our best interests. On the other hand we can fuck with Syria, Iraq and others if they deserve it. This will serve multiple purposes... punish a negative action, show our citizens that our military and it's massive budget is there for good will and necessary policing, and show the other big countries that we are still the baddest fuckers around. I am guessing the recent missile strikes were as much to punish Assad as they were to show Putin that trump is not the pussie Obama was. Yet he's only dropped 56 bombs compared to Obama? Did you read that Vanity Fair aryicle Kyle posted a while back? Jesus Kyle... Read it www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/syrian-air-base-donald-trumpThat showed Putin right?
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous poster on Apr 9, 2017 12:53:04 GMT -5
assad killed thousands before this latest chemical attack and we had done nothing. i agree, if this were solely about the middle east and involved only middle eastern players, yeah, leave them to their own devices. 20, 30, 50 years ago, you could get away with that line of thinking. now? it's much more complex. russia's involvement in the region changes everything. I heard a pretty surprising argument along these lines a while back. I've always been STAUNCHLY anti-interventionist, but I heard a very blunt, very compelling P. J. O'Rourke lay out the "yes, it's all about oil like the left screams, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid reason, and here's why" deal . . . and having Iran, Russia, and China control 75% of the world's energy supply has some pretty significant political, trade, economic, and military implications and you can pretty easily lay out a few scenarios where shit gets WAY off the rails and these nations are exactly the kinds of folks to push that envelope. You think America is big and bad and pushy? Wait till Iran and Russia and China have the world's lifeblood by the short and curlies and their stooges like North Korea and Syria can act with near impunity. You can talk about ethics all you want, but bowing out potentially jeopardizes global economic stability and fucks up the stock market. That's just not an option. Yes, we're greedy. Yes, we like relative stability and gradual, linear growth. Yes, our cars and trucks and lights run on oil. Sue us. Then whine and cry about Russia taking your Uranium with out a single bomb dropped. Tip of the hat if you ask me, no?
|
|
|
Post by mmaphreak on Apr 9, 2017 13:15:57 GMT -5
assad killed thousands before this latest chemical attack and we had done nothing. i agree, if this were solely about the middle east and involved only middle eastern players, yeah, leave them to their own devices. 20, 30, 50 years ago, you could get away with that line of thinking. now? it's much more complex. russia's involvement in the region changes everything. I heard a pretty surprising argument along these lines a while back. I've always been STAUNCHLY anti-interventionist, but I heard a very blunt, very compelling P. J. O'Rourke lay out the "yes, it's all about oil like the left screams, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid reason, and here's why" deal . . . and having Iran, Russia, and China control 75% of the world's energy supply has some pretty significant political, trade, economic, and military implications and you can pretty easily lay out a few scenarios where shit gets WAY off the rails and these nations are exactly the kinds of folks to push that envelope. You think America is big and bad and pushy? Wait till Iran and Russia and China have the world's lifeblood by the short and curlies and their stooges like North Korea and Syria can act with near impunity. You can talk about ethics all you want, but bowing out potentially jeopardizes global economic stability and fucks up the stock market. That's just not an option. Yes, we're greedy. Yes, we like relative stability and gradual, linear growth. Yes, our cars and trucks and lights run on oil. Sue us. you can be cynical and say "it's all about oil", but that doesn't mean that native people in those regions can't be helped in addition to us serving our own needs.
|
|
|
Post by JROD on Apr 9, 2017 13:51:08 GMT -5
I heard a pretty surprising argument along these lines a while back. I've always been STAUNCHLY anti-interventionist, but I heard a very blunt, very compelling P. J. O'Rourke lay out the "yes, it's all about oil like the left screams, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid reason, and here's why" deal . . . and having Iran, Russia, and China control 75% of the world's energy supply has some pretty significant political, trade, economic, and military implications and you can pretty easily lay out a few scenarios where shit gets WAY off the rails and these nations are exactly the kinds of folks to push that envelope. You think America is big and bad and pushy? Wait till Iran and Russia and China have the world's lifeblood by the short and curlies and their stooges like North Korea and Syria can act with near impunity. You can talk about ethics all you want, but bowing out potentially jeopardizes global economic stability and fucks up the stock market. That's just not an option. Yes, we're greedy. Yes, we like relative stability and gradual, linear growth. Yes, our cars and trucks and lights run on oil. Sue us. Then whine and cry about Russia taking your Uranium with out a single bomb dropped. Tip of the hat if you ask me, no? And how exactly is this germane to the current situation in Syria or the Trump administration? Wrong conflict, wrong political party. This is why you were called out as a window licking troll. This click-bait bullshit is the utmost definition of a troll. Squirrel!!!
|
|
|
Post by GI Jane on Apr 9, 2017 14:06:37 GMT -5
Then whine and cry about Russia taking your Uranium with out a single bomb dropped. Tip of the hat if you ask me, no? And how exactly is this germane to the current situation in Syria or the Trump administration? Wrong conflict, wrong political party. This is why you were called out as a window licking troll. This click-bait bullshit is the utmost definition of a troll. Squirrel!!! Where did I say it was in response to Syria or the Trump administration? It was in response to Baph's post about being in the middle east for oil. He's the one that approached it from a different angle. "Sue us. We're here for oil like it or not, the left is right" Then at any opportunity cry about the Russians taking over Uranium, don't cry and whine... Sue them! I like squirrels
|
|
|
Post by JROD on Apr 9, 2017 14:24:33 GMT -5
And how exactly is this germane to the current situation in Syria or the Trump administration? Wrong conflict, wrong political party. This is why you were called out as a window licking troll. This click-bait bullshit is the utmost definition of a troll. Squirrel!!! Where did I say it was in response to Syria or the Trump administration? It was in response to Baph's post about being in the middle east for oil. He's the one that approached it from a different angle. "Sue us. We're here for oil like it or not, the left is right" Then at any opportunity cry about the Russians taking over Uranium, don't cry and whine... Sue them! I like squirrels For the record, the Russians didn't take over the Uranium. SecState Clinton gave the shit to them under the leadership of POTUS Obama. And I'm still not connecting the dots on how Uranium has anything whatsoever to do with GB/GB2?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 9, 2017 14:40:48 GMT -5
"He's not even at a 100 days in office", yet his drone strikes are up 432%. This is were Baph's partisanship is showing. He would rail against Obama for his drone strikes every opportunity he'd get and what about Trump's? Crickets People don't think you're a troll because of your guerrilla guest posting; it's because you're churning out more strawmen than a scarecrow factory. Unapproved military action that is not in direct response to clear national threat is illegal, and the party affiliation of the person ordering it is irrelevant. I don't have partisanship. I have a philosophy centered on ethics and the US constitution. Call me crazy. I oppose Trump on the drug war. I oppose Trump on asset forfeiture and imminent domain. I oppose Trump on v.1 of his healthcare bill. I oppose Trump on non-congressionally-approved drone and tomahawk strikes. I'm expecting to oppose Trump on his infrastructure bill. I don't have a team. I have a consistent, comprehensive, guiding worldview and when Trump acts in violation of that I oppose him. When Obama acted in violation, I opposed him, which was always. Here's the opposite approach: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by GI Jane on Apr 9, 2017 14:51:42 GMT -5
Where did I say it was in response to Syria or the Trump administration? It was in response to Baph's post about being in the middle east for oil. He's the one that approached it from a different angle. "Sue us. We're here for oil like it or not, the left is right" Then at any opportunity cry about the Russians taking over Uranium, don't cry and whine... Sue them! I like squirrels For the record, the Russians didn't take over the Uranium. SecState Clinton gave the shit to them under the leadership of POTUS Obama. And I'm still not connecting the dots on how Uranium has anything whatsoever to do with GB/GB2? I know Clinton gets a lot of well deserved shit but she couldn't have done it by herself, it had to go through 9 agencies. It was not just her call to make. Sure she benifited but there were many others involved that dont get mentioned. Why aren't you asking Baph what his post has to do with GB/GB2? My response was a response to the US being there for oil and people having to deal with it. That's it!
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 9, 2017 15:04:45 GMT -5
Muddy waters.
I recollected an O'Rourke argument about why everyone, not just the US, has much more of a hair trigger for interventionism in the middle east than they do in, say, Sudan or Burma.
I'm also failing to connect dots here. Try to focus trolling on more specific counter points.
|
|
|
Post by Connection on Apr 10, 2017 1:27:12 GMT -5
Muddy waters. I recollected an O'Rourke argument about why everyone, not just the US, has much more of a hair trigger for interventionism in the middle east than they do in, say, Sudan or Burma. I'm also failing to connect dots here. Try to focus trolling on more specific counter points. The connection is you do a lot of bitching about your problems when people overseas/Middle East have it much worse. You've turbed into quite a woman actactua. Did your wife take over your account?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 8:53:20 GMT -5
This Guccifer 2.0 stuff is kinda sad/funny. He's talking conspiracies while trying to flirt with a Playboy centerfold from the 1980's, except that the aged centerfold is totally into it. I don't know how much stock can be put into their direct message conversation on Twitter, because by the time they were talking Seth Rich's murder was already all over 4Chan and well in the spotlight. Not outside the realm of possibility that the hacker nerd was talking out of his ass just to try and woo some old actress.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Apr 10, 2017 11:45:39 GMT -5
This Guccifer 2.0 stuff is kinda sad/funny. He's talking conspiracies while trying to flirt with a Playboy centerfold from the 1980's, except that the aged centerfold is totally into it. I don't know how much stock can be put into their direct message conversation on Twitter, because by the time they were talking Seth Rich's murder was already all over 4Chan and well in the spotlight. Not outside the realm of possibility that the hacker nerd was talking out of his ass just to try and woo some old actress. Seth's death is still a central investigation issue that needs answers. If he was cooperating with the FBI and got murdered? It's a lot more fishy and hard to dismiss than pretending it was a random act of violence. The Clinton body count has to raise an eyebrow to even the most suspicious to conspiracy theories. How many coincidences does it take to sound the real alarm?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 10, 2017 21:38:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Apr 11, 2017 7:00:02 GMT -5
Not sure why this is a surprise
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 8:47:09 GMT -5
"...but has no evidence." So what we have is speculation from an unnamed official when what we really need are facts from someone with the balls to put their name on their claim. Not liking the direction this is going at all.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 11, 2017 11:33:23 GMT -5
Not sure why this is a surprise It would be a surprise for multiple reasons, many of which Putin just laid out in his presser. Assad was winning, US was backing off, rebels were surrounded, many people thought the previous admin had removed all the chemical weapons from Syria . . . . worst timing EVA. Now we know you're a lunatic, we know you lied about your chemical weapons, and you just got 20% of your airforce destroyed. Now Trump's got bi-partisan support for the first time since he announced his candidacy and it'll be impossible to pry this joystick out of his hand. Dumb fucking move. It also flies directly and aggressively in the face of the collusion story if Russia is helping facilitate chemical attacks on civilians whom we support. I mean, yeah, I'm a bit surprised. Seems like a dumb move for Assad and even dumber for Putin. Trump was about to let you have everything you want, your corrupt client state, your pupped dictator, your pipelines . . . now we're all bristling and investigating and moving carriers into the region. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 8:46:24 GMT -5
nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-were-not-going-into-syria/Wonderful news. I think Trump is better at this politics stuff than he's getting credit for. Starting to look a lot like he's taking on a role of puppet master with the media. And he's making them look like dumb puppets, not smart ones.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 12, 2017 10:40:53 GMT -5
Agree that is a relief and lines up exactly with the comments from Mattis.
|
|