What does this mean?

[rightwinger]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Where has the president received payment or demanded payment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

I said day-to-day reality, not US involvement in Syria. You're a loon.

 

[eagle1462010]

---------------------------------- i don't think that The TRUMP was talking about making USA Military forces into MERCENARIES . I think that he was talking about making the slackards like Germany pay their agreed to money for funding NATO Taz .

So you're backing up from what you said earlier. Good for you.

-------------------------------------------- EASY to SAY , but i don't know what you refer to , please communicate what you are talking about TAZ ,

"sounds like The TRUMP is saying that countries that the USA is friendly with MAY get help fighting Wars if they PAY for the help . And of course , thats how it should be Eric ." So you're saying that Americans should die in a war for profit.

-------------------------------------- might end up dying in a war. --- But after dying in the war the USA should be paid or REIMBURSED for Costs associated in fighting the War Taz .

So how much for a dead US soldier?

This argument is stupid and it isn't old.............Many countries after 9/11 didn't send military but money to help pay for the War...............

We aren't mercenaries...............but the cost of these Wars is high..........and those in it have a financial burden to bear as well...........not just token words.............if they choose not to be there so be it............if they choose not to help economical to buy the ammo............then we might remember that we they need us.

Is it wrong to supply them with fuel in combat and not expect them to pay for the gas.............is it wrong to say we could use some money to buy more laser guided bombs we are using every day to hit ISIS..........Wars are fought in all aspects........not just the killing and you can win a war on the battlefield and financially destroy yourself in the process............

So them giving us money doesn't make us MERCS.........it just them paying a share of the cost of the War for mutual benefit................

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

I said day-to-day reality, not US involvement in Syria. You're a loon.

Trump's speech was about the pull out in Syria, dope.

 

[pismoe]

---------------------------------- i don't think that The TRUMP was talking about making USA Military forces into MERCENARIES . I think that he was talking about making the slackards like Germany pay their agreed to money for funding NATO Taz .

So you're backing up from what you said earlier. Good for you.

-------------------------------------------- EASY to SAY , but i don't know what you refer to , please communicate what you are talking about TAZ ,

"sounds like The TRUMP is saying that countries that the USA is friendly with MAY get help fighting Wars if they PAY for the help . And of course , thats how it should be Eric ." So you're saying that Americans should die in a war for profit.

-------------------------------------- might end up dying in a war. --- But after dying in the war the USA should be paid or REIMBURSED for Costs associated in fighting the War Taz .

So how much for a dead US soldier?

------------------------------------------ as i always point out , USA Military is all volunteer for the last 50 years . They fight where their employer , the USA sends them . And costs including deaths associated with fighting for Germany or any country should be paid back or Reimbursed to the USA . Thats not PROFIT Taz , ------------------------------------------------------ Also , different subject but cost related but why did the USA Rebuild Germany and 'europe' for FREE Taz ??

 

[NightFox]

Everybody involved in the situation which of course includes Americans but also includes her Allies, after all, a workable solution will require their cooperation.

That's no good if they have no assets to cooperate with.

Every nation has some "assets" that could be used to re-configure the workload of maintaining global stability so that the U.S. doesn't have to shoulder the lion's share of the burden like it's had to for the last 70 odd years.

IMHO Trump needs to articulate a clear and coherent strategy that indicates what the expectations are so that he can garner both domestic support and the support of the nations involved. We've had to be the "global cop" since WW II and if we don't want to keep having to do that the U.S. is going to have to provide the leadership and sell the strategy to change it.

------------------------------------------- all they need do is Pay Up as a start and thats been a recurring demand since TRUMP has been in Office NFox .

You have to get them to agree to terms of what PAY UP! means before that will ever happen....

For example
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! by the end of the month, the German Government is going to tell you to go fuck yourself
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! over a 10 year schedule you're more likely to get an agreement.

You also have to sell them on the benefits of what PAY UP! is going to provide for them, you can't just keep threatening them with the downside.

---------------------------- from what i understand there are agreements about what Germany as part of NATO is supposed to pay and they haven't paid up from what i understand . Even TRUMP makes reference to Germany as not having paid up . And it'd be music to my ears if Germany was to get mouthy with the USA . Pull out USA Troops and Germany and 'europe' can deal with Russia on its own as far as i am concerned NFox .

Yep, very few of the NATO members have consistently kept up with their original commitments. However there are valid reasons why that is, so it would seem reasonable to renegotiate those commitments to levels that are attainable on a consistent basis or redistributing the burden in a more sustainable fashion, rather than just demanding "PAY UP! or else we're taking our marbles and going home". The "stick and carrot" approach requires that you use a carrot not just the stick.

Unless of course our position is that the aggregate risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis of the U.S. being involved in NATO is negative, in which case there is no need for negotiations, we just withdraw from it, why be involved if there is no net benefit ?

 

[eagle1462010]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

Do you.............really.............

We are about to lose Turkey in NATO.............over the Kurds............should we stay to protect them.......we will have to stay there another decade or more..........at high costs..........

Turkey is a strategic point to the Black Sea..........and they are now shifting alliance from the U.S. TO Russia and Iran............

Not that I like the Turks............but we may very well lose a NATO member in the near future. Which is in control of a vital Choke Point of Russia................who have threatened Europe with turning lose the refugees there into Europe over it..........

The old policy of removing ASSAD of the Obama days was a joint Turkey and U.S. mission..........under Trump he has stated for 2 years that he was not into overthrowing Assad because it hasn't turned out well for this strategy in the past. Now we allied to the Kurds for a long time.......and the Coalition has used them for ground offensives against ISIS........but at the same time........PKK and YPG have engaged the Turks at their borders for old Wars................

So now we are in a rock and a Hard Case...........Syria, Russia,Turkey,Iraq, and Iran are ready to attack them again........and actually they have all hit them recently................All of them..............Are you prepared to fight all of those countries over this or spend another decade there to protect them at another cost of about 2.5 Trillion dollars.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's no good if they have no assets to cooperate with.

Every nation has some "assets" that could be used to re-configure the workload of maintaining global stability so that the U.S. doesn't have to shoulder the lion's share of the burden like it's had to for the last 70 odd years.

IMHO Trump needs to articulate a clear and coherent strategy that indicates what the expectations are so that he can garner both domestic support and the support of the nations involved. We've had to be the "global cop" since WW II and if we don't want to keep having to do that the U.S. is going to have to provide the leadership and sell the strategy to change it.

------------------------------------------- all they need do is Pay Up as a start and thats been a recurring demand since TRUMP has been in Office NFox .

You have to get them to agree to terms of what PAY UP! means before that will ever happen....

For example
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! by the end of the month, the German Government is going to tell you to go fuck yourself
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! over a 10 year schedule you're more likely to get an agreement.

You also have to sell them on the benefits of what PAY UP! is going to provide for them, you can't just keep threatening them with the downside.

---------------------------- from what i understand there are agreements about what Germany as part of NATO is supposed to pay and they haven't paid up from what i understand . Even TRUMP makes reference to Germany as not having paid up . And it'd be music to my ears if Germany was to get mouthy with the USA . Pull out USA Troops and Germany and 'europe' can deal with Russia on its own as far as i am concerned NFox .

Yep, very few of the NATO members have consistently kept up with their original commitments. However there are valid reasons why that is, so it would seem reasonable to renegotiate those commitments to levels that are attainable on a consistent basis or redistributing the burden in a more sustainable fashion, rather than just demanding "PAY UP! or else we're taking our marbles and going home". The "stick and carrot" approach requires that you use a carrot not just the stick.

Unless of course our position is that the aggregate risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis of the U.S. being involved in NATO is negative, in which case there is no need for negotiations, we just withdraw from it, why be involved if there is no net benefit ?

The net benefit of NATO is that the West, led by the US, has the greater share of influence accross the European continent. That influence has rendered Russia toothless for decades.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

Do you.............really.............

We are about to lose Turkey in NATO.............over the Kurds............should we stay to protect them.......we will have to stay there another decade or more..........at high costs..........

Turkey is a strategic point to the Black Sea..........and they are now shifting alliance from the U.S. TO Russia and Iran............

Not that I like the Turks............but we may very well lose a NATO member in the near future. Which is in control of a vital Choke Point of Russia................who have threatened Europe with turning lose the refugees there into Europe over it..........

The old policy of removing ASSAD of the Obama days was a joint Turkey and U.S. mission..........under Trump he has stated for 2 years that he was not into overthrowing Assad because it hasn't turned out well for this strategy in the past. Now we allied to the Kurds for a long time.......and the Coalition has used them for ground offensives against ISIS........but at the same time........PKK and YPG have engaged the Turks at their borders for old Wars................

So now we are in a rock and a Hard Case...........Syria, Russia,Turkey,Iraq, and Iran are ready to attack them again........and actually they have all hit them recently................All of them..............Are you prepared to fight all of those countries over this or spend another decade there to protect them at another cost of about 2.5 Trillion dollars.

Our withdrawal fom Syria cedes regional control to Russia and Iran, dope. It gives them territory soley under their influence.

 

[ErikViking]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Where has the president received payment or demanded payment.

Not sure I understand. He is talking about a price, sometimes monetary, that needs to be payed, doesn’t he?

 

[pismoe]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Where has the president received payment or demanded payment.

--------------------------------------- The TRUMP has brought the subject of payment many times to 'merkel' at different meetings of 'euro type' big wigs . Trump hasn't demanded but has talked about PAYING for 'nato' on the 'international stage' while pointing at the 'bratwurst eaters' RWinger . I'll get a link if'n i can RWinger .

 

[eagle1462010]

In his speech to the troops the President said this:

”America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. "And sometimes that’s also a monetary price, so we’re not the suckers of the world. We’re no longer the suckers, folks. And people aren’t looking at us as suckers."
Trump to American troops in Iraq: U.S. no longer 'the suckers of the world'

This sounds so strange. US would like to continue to fight that war if there i money in it? Or is he selling the US capability to fight wars in general? Can anyone buy?

Or is it merely to make a point of the cost in dollars? Not really expecting to get paid?

Those are the remarks of a clueless fool.
Does our CIC have even a basic idea of what a strategic interest is?

Do you have a clue as to what day-to-day reality is? No. STFU then.

What does that even mean?

Of course I understand the strategic interest behind our involvement in Syria. Obviously you and Trump do not.

Do you.............really.............

We are about to lose Turkey in NATO.............over the Kurds............should we stay to protect them.......we will have to stay there another decade or more..........at high costs..........

Turkey is a strategic point to the Black Sea..........and they are now shifting alliance from the U.S. TO Russia and Iran............

Not that I like the Turks............but we may very well lose a NATO member in the near future. Which is in control of a vital Choke Point of Russia................who have threatened Europe with turning lose the refugees there into Europe over it..........

The old policy of removing ASSAD of the Obama days was a joint Turkey and U.S. mission..........under Trump he has stated for 2 years that he was not into overthrowing Assad because it hasn't turned out well for this strategy in the past. Now we allied to the Kurds for a long time.......and the Coalition has used them for ground offensives against ISIS........but at the same time........PKK and YPG have engaged the Turks at their borders for old Wars................

So now we are in a rock and a Hard Case...........Syria, Russia,Turkey,Iraq, and Iran are ready to attack them again........and actually they have all hit them recently................All of them..............Are you prepared to fight all of those countries over this or spend another decade there to protect them at another cost of about 2.5 Trillion dollars.

Our withdrawal fom Syria cedes regional control to Russia and Iran, dope. It gives them territory soley under their influence.

Before the Arab Spring and ISIS in Syria..........That land was controlled by Syria, Russia, and Iran DOPE............but now because of the endless Wars there we will lose Turkey as well...............DOPE.............

A very Strange situation.........a primarily Sunni Country.........with one of the strongest militaries in Europe..........thanks to the United States..........now siding with Shia Iran............

Shia and the Sunnis have traditionally hated each other.............this is all because we didn't kill Assad.....and the Kurds.........That was previous administrations decisions................the last 2 years has been about ending ISIS and leaving.............No you would have us stuck for another decade there wiggling in the quicksand of the middle east.........

We will now probably lose a Strategic Ally in NATO over this.......because they are the gateway to Europe from the Middle East.........and a KEY STRATIGIC location to the Black Sea.............

There are no good solutions there............only shitty ones..............at a high cost.

 

[NightFox]

Every nation has some "assets" that could be used to re-configure the workload of maintaining global stability so that the U.S. doesn't have to shoulder the lion's share of the burden like it's had to for the last 70 odd years.

IMHO Trump needs to articulate a clear and coherent strategy that indicates what the expectations are so that he can garner both domestic support and the support of the nations involved. We've had to be the "global cop" since WW II and if we don't want to keep having to do that the U.S. is going to have to provide the leadership and sell the strategy to change it.

------------------------------------------- all they need do is Pay Up as a start and thats been a recurring demand since TRUMP has been in Office NFox .

You have to get them to agree to terms of what PAY UP! means before that will ever happen....

For example
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! by the end of the month, the German Government is going to tell you to go fuck yourself
If you go to Germany and tell 'em PAY UP! over a 10 year schedule you're more likely to get an agreement.

You also have to sell them on the benefits of what PAY UP! is going to provide for them, you can't just keep threatening them with the downside.

---------------------------- from what i understand there are agreements about what Germany as part of NATO is supposed to pay and they haven't paid up from what i understand . Even TRUMP makes reference to Germany as not having paid up . And it'd be music to my ears if Germany was to get mouthy with the USA . Pull out USA Troops and Germany and 'europe' can deal with Russia on its own as far as i am concerned NFox .

Yep, very few of the NATO members have consistently kept up with their original commitments. However there are valid reasons why that is, so it would seem reasonable to renegotiate those commitments to levels that are attainable on a consistent basis or redistributing the burden in a more sustainable fashion, rather than just demanding "PAY UP! or else we're taking our marbles and going home". The "stick and carrot" approach requires that you use a carrot not just the stick.

Unless of course our position is that the aggregate risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis of the U.S. being involved in NATO is negative, in which case there is no need for negotiations, we just withdraw from it, why be involved if there is no net benefit ?

The net benefit of NATO is that the West, led by the US, has the greater share of influence accross the European continent. That influence has rendered Russia toothless for decades.

I guess I should have been more clear on the meaning of "our position" regarding the risk vs. reward and cost benefit analysis.

What I meant was; The analysis of the legions of over-payed, bureaucratic dickweeds in Washington that have the expertise and resources necessary to perform a comprehensive analysis pursuant to the development of coherent recommendations.

Not the opinions of anonymous posters that do not possess the resources and competence to come up with rational conclusions on the subject.

 

[pismoe]

i think this is a good illustration of TRUMP telling 'merkle' to pay up RWinger . --- ---

 

[Taz]

So you're backing up from what you said earlier. Good for you.

-------------------------------------------- EASY to SAY , but i don't know what you refer to , please communicate what you are talking about TAZ ,

"sounds like The TRUMP is saying that countries that the USA is friendly with MAY get help fighting Wars if they PAY for the help . And of course , thats how it should be Eric ." So you're saying that Americans should die in a war for profit.

-------------------------------------- might end up dying in a war. --- But after dying in the war the USA should be paid or REIMBURSED for Costs associated in fighting the War Taz .

So how much for a dead US soldier?

This argument is stupid and it isn't old.............Many countries after 9/11 didn't send military but money to help pay for the War...............

We aren't mercenaries...............but the cost of these Wars is high..........and those in it have a financial burden to bear as well...........not just token words.............if they choose not to be there so be it............if they choose not to help economical to buy the ammo............then we might remember that we they need us.

Is it wrong to supply them with fuel in combat and not expect them to pay for the gas.............is it wrong to say we could use some money to buy more laser guided bombs we are using every day to hit ISIS..........Wars are fought in all aspects........not just the killing and you can win a war on the battlefield and financially destroy yourself in the process............

So them giving us money doesn't make us MERCS.........it just them paying a share of the cost of the War for mutual benefit................

So they pay for the gas but get the dead US soldiers for free?

 

[Taz]

So you're backing up from what you said earlier. Good for you.

-------------------------------------------- EASY to SAY , but i don't know what you refer to , please communicate what you are talking about TAZ ,

"sounds like The TRUMP is saying that countries that the USA is friendly with MAY get help fighting Wars if they PAY for the help . And of course , thats how it should be Eric ." So you're saying that Americans should die in a war for profit.

-------------------------------------- might end up dying in a war. --- But after dying in the war the USA should be paid or REIMBURSED for Costs associated in fighting the War Taz .

So how much for a dead US soldier?

------------------------------------------ as i always point out , USA Military is all volunteer for the last 50 years . They fight where their employer , the USA sends them . And costs including deaths associated with fighting for Germany or any country should be paid back or Reimbursed to the USA . Thats not PROFIT Taz , ------------------------------------------------------ Also , different subject but cost related but why did the USA Rebuild Germany and 'europe' for FREE Taz ??

So the commies wouldn’t get it. Now you know.

 

[eagle1462010]

-------------------------------------------- EASY to SAY , but i don't know what you refer to , please communicate what you are talking about TAZ ,

"sounds like The TRUMP is saying that countries that the USA is friendly with MAY get help fighting Wars if they PAY for the help . And of course , thats how it should be Eric ." So you're saying that Americans should die in a war for profit.

-------------------------------------- might end up dying in a war. --- But after dying in the war the USA should be paid or REIMBURSED for Costs associated in fighting the War Taz .

So how much for a dead US soldier?

This argument is stupid and it isn't old.............Many countries after 9/11 didn't send military but money to help pay for the War...............

We aren't mercenaries...............but the cost of these Wars is high..........and those in it have a financial burden to bear as well...........not just token words.............if they choose not to be there so be it............if they choose not to help economical to buy the ammo............then we might remember that we they need us.

Is it wrong to supply them with fuel in combat and not expect them to pay for the gas.............is it wrong to say we could use some money to buy more laser guided bombs we are using every day to hit ISIS..........Wars are fought in all aspects........not just the killing and you can win a war on the battlefield and financially destroy yourself in the process............

So them giving us money doesn't make us MERCS.........it just them paying a share of the cost of the War for mutual benefit................

So they pay for the gas but get the dead US soldiers for free?

Show me the fuel tankers that have crashed lately.........or the loses of any aircraft in either theatre of operation......in regards to Yemen.........we don't have ground forces there......

In regards to Syria......we are about to withdraw................

What's your point..........I haven't seen are aircraft falling out of the sky.

 

[nat4900]

t means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

Do moronic Trump ass kissers.....like you.....ever wonder WHY we increased the military budget under Trump just to have our troops safely staying stateside???

The idiot-in-chief just gave the ME all to Russia, Iran and Turkey.

 

[eagle1462010]

t means fund your own military, Sweden, and stop expecting us to be at your back for absolutely nothing in return. And that goes for almost the entire rest of the world too.

For that speech alone I love President Trump

Do moronic Trump ass kissers.....like you.....ever wonder WHY we increased the military budget under Trump just to have our troops safely staying stateside???

The idiot-in-chief just gave the ME all to Russia, Iran and Turkey.

You shouldn't be so hard on Obama.............his strategy to overthrow Assad using El Nusra and ISIS failed........yeah I said that...............Had he killed Assad Turkey would be happy...........and maybe not leaving NATO soon.............

As was the decision of the Nations of the willing to kill ISIS............using the Kurds to do the cleansing on the ground.....putting them right on the front doorstep of Turkey in Syria.......fighting within spitting distance of Turkish forces killing ISIS...........

Don't be so hard on your boy Obama........he was after all a community organizer......so that excuses his stupidity.