Has Trump Lost Control Of The Pentagon?

[openfire]

If this is true, then the deep state has won:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-16/has-trump-lost-control-pentagon

wtf. This is bad.

[CaptUSA]

If this is true, then the deep state has won:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-16/has-trump-lost-control-pentagon

wtf. This is bad. :confused: "Lost control"??

He just gave them "total authorization". http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509755-Trump-I-m-giving-the-military-total-authorization

He isn't "losing" control - he gave it to them! You Trump guys still don't get how you've been cucked! You bought the con of what you wanted Trump to be; not what he really is. Too bad for you. You're going to have a long couple of years trying to reconcile all of this in your head.

[jmdrake]

:confused: "Lost control"??

He just gave them "total authorization". http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509755-Trump-I-m-giving-the-military-total-authorization

He isn't "losing" control - he gave it to them! You Trump guys still don't get how you've been cucked! You bought the con of what you wanted Trump to be; not what he really is. Too bad for you. You're going to have a long couple of years trying to reconcile all of this in your head.

^This. I wish openfire and other Trump supporters like dannno would stop and think about why the book "The Art of the Deal" was written. It was written about making sales. Trump is a salesman. He's always been that. There's nothing wrong with that. We need salesman in order to have a vibrant economy. But nobody stopped and asked the question "What is Trump really selling" when he got into politics. People assumed that Trump had the same core values they had. If he didn't, why would he take such "politically incorrect" positions? It's simple. Political correctness is relative. To teocons, being anti immigrant is politically correct. To libertarians/Ron Paul voters, being against the Iraq war "from the beginning" is politically correct. To both sides being against NAFTA and the TPP is politically correct. Trump told people what they wanted to hear. That's always a recipe for winning. And, above all else, Trump likes to win.

Seriously, the vast majority of Americans, especially republican voters, likes the sound of "Getting the politicians out of the way and letting the generals win the war." Supposedly we lost Vietnam because "The politicians wouldn't let the generals win the war." We've been screwing around in Afghanistan for over a decade now. We got out of Iraq because Obama actually kept a promise that Bush made, but now we're back in. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that both countries reached an "as good as it gets" stage years ago and that the entire region would be better off if we just left it alone. So Trump will keep doing what he rightly realizes most of his base craves which is "winning" the wars. But the problem is that ultimately these wars aren't winnable. Not based on any real definition of winning. There is no greater oxymoron than a "humanitarian war."

[nikcers]

Trump: I've Given The Military "Total Authorization (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/13/trump_on_moab_ive_given_military_total_authorizati on_thats_why_theyve_been_so_successful_lately.html )," "That's Why They've Been So Successful Lately"



I think Trump has given the Military Industrial Complex the keys and he is riding in the back seat.

[Jamesiv1]

Anybody who doesn't support Trump is letting the terrorists win.

[Origanalist]

Anybody who doesn't support Trump is letting the terrorists win.

I thought it was the globalists.

[tod evans]

I thought it was the globalists.

Them too!

And the swamp creatures, can't forget them.........

[osan]

If so, is anyone really surprised?

[Origanalist]

If so, is anyone really surprised?

Apparently the OP is.

[timosman]

I think Trump has given the Military Industrial Complex the keys and he is riding in the back seat.

These guys at least have a plan. /s

[Cleaner44]

I think Trump has given the Military Industrial Complex the keys and he is riding in the back seat.

Pretty much. He is all about "empowering" cops and generals to create law and order.

[CPUd]

I think Trump has given the Military Industrial Complex the keys and he is riding in the back seat.

Also the whole "war with the deep state" is fake news, according to President Donald.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkKxO2WWIwE

[shakey1]

https://68.media.tumblr.com/45eed14768b79c4094c8f9918a3616ed/tumblr_okafbxx2EJ1s2wio8o1_500.gif

[dannno]

If this is true, then the deep state has won:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-16/has-trump-lost-control-pentagon

wtf. This is bad.

Take some deep breathes and meditate.. I always like that website but a lot of people who disagree with Trump's individual actions tend to adopt deep state narratives to some degree or another.

[CaptUSA]

Take some deep breathes and meditate.. I always like that website but a lot of people who disagree with Trump's individual actions tend to adopt deep state narratives to some degree or another.

I'm thinking of a new word for you, Dannno... How about, "Hypno-Trumped"?!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rVEfD9hcip0/maxresdefault.jpg

[dannno]

I'm thinking of a new word for you, Dannno... How about, "Hypno-Trumped"?!

I would prefer that to being hypnotized to the mainstream media narratives like you are.

[Ender]

I would prefer that to being hypnotized to the mainstream media narratives like you are.

dannno, how much of why the fuck has the president given all war powers to the generals instead of back to congress, do you not understand?

[CaptUSA]

I would prefer that to being hypnotized to the mainstream media narratives like you are.

Sorry, Dannno. I'm not following any "narratives". I use a few basic axioms: Is government getting bigger or smaller? Are we getting more involved in overseas conflicts or less? Are we spending more of my grandchildren's money or less?

Trump's actions do not surprise me. This is what I expected him to do. I don't have to make up fancy excuses or strained reasoning for him. He is what he is. A high-stakes conman who uses people's fantasies for his own power.

[dannno]

Sorry, Dannno. I'm not following any "narratives". I use a few basic axioms: Is government getting bigger or smaller? Are we getting more involved in overseas conflicts or less? Are we spending more of my grandchildren's money or less?

Well clearly you missed my post on the State of Trump Address, because he is actually doing a fantastic job so far if you read past the mainstream media lies. Check it out:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509834-The-First-State-of-Trump-Address

Trump is making government smaller and we are less involved in boondoggle wars. Did you know he passed the EO saying that we have to repeal two regulations in order to pass one?

[dannno]

dannno, how much of why the fuck has the president given all war powers to the generals instead of back to congress, do you not understand?

With the directive to defeat ISIS, as opposed to helping them... They have not been given the directive to attack any sovereign countries.

[CaptUSA]

Did you know he passed the EO saying that we have to repeal two regulations in order to pass one?

Yes. And I said it was a good start (although meaningless, since "regulations" aren't always enumerated)

Did you see the one where he authorized hiring 10,000 more federal agents?! Awesome!

[CaptUSA]

With the directive to defeat ISIS, as opposed to helping them... They have not been given the directive to attack any sovereign countries.

FWIW, Yemen and Syria are both sovereign countries.

Even so, are you really ascared of ISIS? Seems to me, and any rational person, the response is completely disproportionate to the threat.

[asurfaholic]

With the directive to defeat ISIS, as opposed to helping them... They have not been given the directive to attack any sovereign countries.

Is that why trump ok'd an attack on Syria's military?

[tod evans]

FWIW, Yemen and Syria are both sovereign countries.

Even so, are you really ascared of ISIS? Seems to me, and any rational person, the response is completely disproportionate to the threat.

Oh come on man!

A buncha Brownies in mud huts are absolutely worth 17 gazillion dollars of military might to set 'em straight....

Especially without a declaration of war........

What better way to care for the MIC's children?

[dannno]

Is that why trump ok'd an attack on Syria's military?

Right, besides the 15 minute attack on the empty airbase for allegedly using sarin gas against civilians..

Would you prefer a military boondoggle, regime change and nation building to a 15 minute attack on an empty airbase?

[osan]

With the directive to defeat ISIS, as opposed to helping them... They have not been given the directive to attack any sovereign countries.

While I do not support intervention, the sad fact is that we are in a bad situation for which receding may not prove a viable solution.

Somebody created ISIS, etc. May have been "us" (horse-shit use of the set in question, but nobody seems willing to abandon it), may have been "globalists"... who in hell can say, without a list of verified names? This is one way in which Theye can so effectively deflect attention from themselves. The "U.S." created ISIS. Bullshit. I am the USA, yet had nothing to do with ISIS' creation. Methinks you get the point?

I don't suppose we owe anyone in the middle east anything, but from a strictly practical standpoint we are perhaps behooved to consider the broader implications of leaving ISIS alone. Will it die on the vine? Not if Theye continue to pump billions into the cause, perhaps with the aim of growing them such that they are then able to mount a credible offensive against America. All very speculative, I grant you, but very plausible as well.

The question is whether pulling out will hurt us more in the long run. The fact is, we're painted into what is likely a very bad corner. Just turning our backs to an ISIS that continues to receive major funding runs the risk of it consolidating power throughout the middle east, getting hands on not only nukes, but delivery instruments, and so forth. This is not empty speculation. Consider the apparent goals of those Wahhabist vermin: to take over the world. They may be idiots, but they are clever and treacherous all the same. If they are left with free run, you know they are going to go for the city-busting weapons, as well as gases, biologics, and so forth.

I don't know where proper sense lies in all this. I can see valid reason in both arguments, but for me a huge factor is whether the jihadis would continue to grow in the absence of funding from the US. I strongly suspect that they would because I do not believe Theye would simply stop funding them, but would only change the channel. I think it is dangerously naive to assume that ISIS is the product of America. It is the product of globalist interests who used America as the instrument. We withdraw and Theye find a new path.

Were there an honest recognition of the global situation, the borders to Europe would have been shut long ago, as would those of the rest of the world. There is something very sinister going on here, or so it appears.

[JK/SEA]

:confused: "Lost control"??

He just gave them "total authorization". http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509755-Trump-I-m-giving-the-military-total-authorization

He isn't "losing" control - he gave it to them! You Trump guys still don't get how you've been cucked! You bought the con of what you wanted Trump to be; not what he really is. Too bad for you. You're going to have a long couple of years trying to reconcile all of this in your head.


Don Lemon said the same thing a few days ago.

[dannno]

FWIW, Yemen and Syria are both sovereign countries.

Even so, are you really ascared of ISIS? Seems to me, and any rational person, the response is completely disproportionate to the threat.

I don't understand why you keep writing posts that insinuate I support military action overseas. I keep saying that I don't, yet you keep making these posts.

What I do prefer, is our military going after ISIS over getting involved in boondoggle regime change wars and nation building.

[tod evans]

What I do prefer, is our military going after ISIS over getting involved in boondoggle regime change wars and nation building.

"Our military" isn't designed or intended to go after individuals which is why there's supposed to be a declaration of war prior to unleashing them....

[timosman]

"Our military" isn't designed or intended to go after individuals which is why there's supposed to be a declaration of war prior to unleashing them....

This isn't a war. It is a pageant.

[dannno]

"Our military" isn't designed or intended to go after individuals which is why there's supposed to be a declaration of war prior to unleashing them....

That's why in the first half of the quote you posted, which you deleted, I said I don't support it.

I have a neighbor who I like. I have a preference for picking up dog poop off my neighbor's lawn over dumping 100 tons of manure on their house. Sue me.

[Ender]

That's why in the first half of the quote you posted, which you deleted, I said I don't support it.

I have a neighbor who I like. I have a preference for picking up dog poop off my neighbor's lawn over dumping 100 tons of manure on their house. Sue me.

But the fact that you have absolutely no business on your neighbor's property doesn't matter- amirite?

[shakey1]

Could jus' throw the poop back in his yard... returning what's his, eh?

[nikcers]

Could jus' throw the poop back in his yard... returning what's his, eh?

My dad did that once, neighbors had German shepards and left a chihuahua sized present in our yard- without skipping a beat he picked it up with his hand a flung it over the fence and hit the neighbors wife in the face.

[dannno]

But the fact that you have absolutely no business on your neighbor's property doesn't matter- amirite?

Like I said, if your dog poops on your neighbor's lawn, you might be trespassing but they will be glad you picked it up. jmdrake said Syria doesn't want us there rooting out ISIS, picking up our dog poop, I have a strong disagreement there - I am pretty sure Assad welcomes our military there so long as we are fighting ISIS. It isn't what I would do, personally, but it is a lot better than getting us into boondoggle wars.

[dannno]

Could jus' throw the poop back in his yard... returning what's his, eh?

Obama and several European countries tried that by bringing in Syrian refugees.

[Anti Federalist]

To be clear: NO president has had control of the Pentagon since Truman.

[phill4paul]

To be clear: NO president has had control of the Pentagon since Truman.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs serves at the pleasure of the president. Or at least that is the way it is supposed to be. <shrug>

[oyarde]

To be clear: NO president has had control of the Pentagon since Truman.

Certainly there has been no presidents in control of the CIA or probably the pentagon since Ike . What would make anyone think any of the presidential candidates on the final tickets ( Johnson , Trump or Clinton ) would even be slightly qualified to have any idea of what they are doing in the CIA or Pentagon ?

[Ender]

Like I said, if your dog poops on your neighbor's lawn, you might be trespassing but they will be glad you picked it up. jmdrake said Syria doesn't want us there rooting out ISIS, picking up our dog poop, I have a strong disagreement there - I am pretty sure Assad welcomes our military there so long as we are fighting ISIS. It isn't what I would do, personally, but it is a lot better than getting us into boondoggle wars.

There would be NO ISIS if we hadn't starting meddling in the ME in the first place. It was the US that created and supplied Al Qaeda and I believe it is the US that helped form ISIS.

Your comparison is really about taking over your neighbor's property but promising to keep all the dog poop off of it. Only you throw poop in everyone's yard and then blame your neighbor. When they start bombarding his place, he gets upset and blames you; you then deny it and encourage everyone to keep it up and supply them poop projectiles. While the fight's going on, you steal more of your neighbor's property and also make a million on your company's projectiles.

A win/win for you and your special interests.

[dannno]

There would be NO ISIS if we hadn't starting meddling in the ME in the first place. It was the US that created and supplied Al Qaeda and I believe it is the US that helped form ISIS.

Yes, that is why my picking up dog poop on your neighbor's lawn analogy is so appropriate. Obama's dog pooped (ISIS) on Syria's lawn, and now Trump is picking it up (getting rid of ISIS).




Your comparison is really about taking over your neighbor's property but promising to keep all the dog poop off of it. Only you throw poop in everyone's yard and then blame your neighbor. When they start bombarding his place, he gets upset and blames you; you then deny it and encourage everyone to keep it up and supply them poop projectiles. While the fight's going on, you steal more of your neighbor's property and also make a million on your company's projectiles.


That sounds like a neocon boondoggle, something I assure you Trump will not be involved in. When he is, let me know. Because right now, he's not.

[phill4paul]

Certainly there has been no presidents in control of the CIA or probably the pentagon since Ike . What would make anyone think any of the presidential candidates on the final tickets ( Johnson , Trump or Clinton ) would even be slightly qualified to have any idea of what they are doing in the CIA or Pentagon ?

Hillary. I've no doubt that Hillary is overly qualified.

[klamath]

Jesus Christ people! Trump said in his book in 2000 that he was the only person advocating a preemptive strike on NK. Now all of a sudden Trumpys are saying he lost control. BULLSHIT!
Had Trumpys saying we SHOULD strike NK!

[Anti Federalist]

Jesus Christ people! Trump said in his book in 2000 that he was the only person advocating a preemptive strike on NK. Now all of a sudden Trumpys are saying he lost control. BULLSHIT!
Had Trumpys saying we SHOULD strike NK!

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/367/discusses-his-bid-for-the-reform-party-presidential-nomination-interview#.WPVwTvnyucw

MR. RUSSERT: ...which I've had a chance to have some excerpts given to me by your office. Let me talk about some of the issues. One is North Korea. And you say that you, as president, would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea's nuclear capability.

MR. TRUMP: First, I'd negotiate. I would negotiate like crazy. And I'd make sure that we tried to get the best deal possible. Look, Tim, if a man walks up to you on a street in Washington—because this doesn't happen, of course, in New York. But if a man walks up and puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your money," wouldn't you rather know where he's coming from before he had the gun in his hand? And these people in three or four years are going to be having nuclear weapons. They're going to have those weapons pointed all over the world and specifically at the United States.

And wouldn't you be better off solving this really potentially, unbelievable—and the biggest problem. I mean, we can talk about the economy, we can talk about Social Security. The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation. And we have a country out there, North Korea, which is sort of wacko, which is not a bunch of dummies. And they are going out and they are developing nuclear weapons. And they're not doing it because they're having fun doing it. They're doing it for a reason. And wouldn't it be good to sit down and really negotiate something and ideally negotiate. Now, if that negotiation doesn't work, you'd better solve the problem now than solve it later, Tim. And you know it and every politician knows it, and nobody wants to talk about it.

Jimmy Carter, who I really like, he went over there. It was so soft. These people are laughing at us.

[merkelstan]

^This. I wish @openfire (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=12847) and other Trump supporters like @dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908) would stop and think about why the book "The Art of the Deal" was written. It was written about making sales. Trump is a salesman. He's always been that. There's nothing wrong with that. We need salesman in order to have a vibrant economy. But nobody stopped and asked the question "What is Trump really selling" when he got into politics. People assumed that Trump had the same core values they had. If he didn't, why would he take such "politically incorrect" positions? It's simple. Political correctness is relative. To teocons, being anti immigrant is politically correct. To libertarians/Ron Paul voters, being against the Iraq war "from the beginning" is politically correct. To both sides being against NAFTA and the TPP is politically correct. Trump told people what they wanted to hear. That's always a recipe for winning. And, above all else, Trump likes to win.

Seriously, the vast majority of Americans, especially republican voters, likes the sound of "Getting the politicians out of the way and letting the generals win the war." Supposedly we lost Vietnam because "The politicians wouldn't let the generals win the war." We've been screwing around in Afghanistan for over a decade now. We got out of Iraq because Obama actually kept a promise that Bush made, but now we're back in. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that both countries reached an "as good as it gets" stage years ago and that the entire region would be better off if we just left it alone.

This is well put.

This now...

So Trump will keep doing what he rightly realizes most of his base craves which is "winning" the wars. But the problem is that ultimately these wars aren't winnable. Not based on any real definition of winning. There is no greater oxymoron than a "humanitarian war."

It's my strong impression that most of his base is sick of regime change BS wars, unless you count ISIS as a regime. Those guys are fair game for most people including Trumpians. Yes, it's not the libertarian position, I know.

And saying these wars are not winnable - well you saw the trap didn't you. IF the goal is to destroy the country as a functioninig nation, THEN the war was a success. Why is it so difficult to conclude that the humanitarian narrative was a callous, conscious decepion? (Certainly not by everyone involved, but at least among the leadership.)

[jmdrake]

Yes, that is why my picking up dog poop on your neighbor's lawn analogy is so appropriate. Obama's dog pooped (ISIS) on Syria's lawn, and now Trump is picking it up (getting rid of ISIS)

Again if your neighbor says stay the fvck off my lawn I don't want your help with the dog poop it is NOT appropriate! Come on Dannno, I already explained this to you. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT! Trump has totally swiss cheesed your brain. You can't possibly be this stupid.



That sounds like a neocon boondoggle, something I assure you Trump will not be involved in. When he is, let me know. Because right now, he's not.

Right now you are in denial. The Trump administration has declared regime change in Syria to be his goal. That, by definition, is a boondoggle. And Trump is following the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton playbook to a T. Keep it at an air war with limited use of special forces so the body bags don't mount up because that's the only way Americans will give a shyt. Come on Dannno. Engage your brain. I know you have one. I've seen you use it before.

[anaconda]

LOL Trump's utter iron fisted dominance of the Pentagon has slipped away in 100 days.

[Origanalist]

Like I said, if your dog poops on your neighbor's lawn, you might be trespassing but they will be glad you picked it up. jmdrake said Syria doesn't want us there rooting out ISIS, picking up our dog poop, I have a strong disagreement there - I am pretty sure Assad welcomes our military there so long as we are fighting ISIS. It isn't what I would do, personally, but it is a lot better than getting us into boondoggle wars.

I don't get the feeling we're welcome there by Assad. Maybe you're picking up different signals than I am.

[r3volution 3.0]

To be clear: NO president has had control of the Pentagon since Truman.

Nah, they could have changed foreign policy.

They simply didn't want to.

[dannno]

I don't get the feeling we're welcome there by Assad. Maybe you're picking up different signals than I am.

Assad would "welcome" U.S. troops to Syria, on his termsDAMASCUS, Syria -- Syria’s President Bashar Assad says he would welcome U.S. troops into his country to help fight ISIS militants (http://www.cbsnews.com/isis/) “without any hesitation” if the Trump administration espouses a “clear political stance, not only with regards to (the fight against) terrorism, but also about Syria’s sovereignty and unity.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bashar-assad-trump-welcome-us-troops-isis-sovereignty-respected/

[dannno]

Again if your neighbor says stay the fvck off my lawn I don't want your help with the dog poop it is NOT appropriate! Come on Dannno, I already explained this to you. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT! Trump has totally swiss cheesed your brain. You can't possibly be this stupid.



Right now you are in denial. The Trump administration has declared regime change in Syria to be his goal. That, by definition, is a boondoggle. And Trump is following the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton playbook to a T. Keep it at an air war with limited use of special forces so the body bags don't mount up because that's the only way Americans will give a shyt. Come on Dannno. Engage your brain. I know you have one. I've seen you use it before.

We're not going into Syria for regime change, we're not going into Syria for a boondoggle war. That has been made clear by the President. Some of his neocon cabinet have said otherwise, but they are not the President. You are confusing what people in Trump's cabinet has said with what Trump has said, which were contradictory. Whose opinion is going to Trump in the end, do you think?

[chudrockz]

Assad would "welcome" U.S. troops to Syria, on his termsDAMASCUS, Syria -- Syria’s President Bashar Assad says he would welcome U.S. troops into his country to help fight ISIS militants (http://www.cbsnews.com/isis/) “without any hesitation” if the Trump administration espouses a “clear political stance, not only with regards to (the fight against) terrorism, but also about Syria’s sovereignty and unity.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bashar-assad-trump-welcome-us-troops-isis-sovereignty-respected/

A (hypothetical) scenario:

I come into Danno's house with a gun, pointing it at his family. I say to Danno, "Danno, put out a press release saying I am welcome in your house or I'll shoot your wife!" Then Danno issues a statement similar to the quoted one from Assad. Maybe.

[dannno]

A (hypothetical) scenario:

I come into Danno's house with a gun, pointing it at his family. I say to Danno, "Danno, put out a press release saying I am welcome in your house or I'll shoot your wife!" Then Danno issues a statement similar to the quoted one from Assad. Maybe.

That is a ridiculous analogy that has no bearing on reality at all.

[jmdrake]

We're not going into Syria for regime change, we're not going into Syria for a boondoggle war. That has been made clear by the President. Some of his neocon cabinet have said otherwise, but they are not the President. You are confusing what people in Trump's cabinet has said with what Trump has said, which were contradictory. Whose opinion is going to Trump in the end, do you think?

Your argument lacks merit. For you thing you apparently agree with the idea that Assad being forced out of office is an "acceptable choice." I do not. I doubt Assad finds it an acceptable choice either. For some odd reason you don't think that Russia being pressured to force Assad to leave office is regime change. You have a very odd, and provably incorrect, definition of regime change if that is the case. And lastly, Assad made it clear that U.S. troops were only welcome if the Trump administration made a clear political statement in favor of Syrian sovereignty. I showed you were both Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson called for regime change. But let's say only Nikki Haley did. Then that means that the Trump administration has not bade a clear statement in favor of Syrian sovereignty. For an administration to make a clear statement, the varies top level officials need to be saying the same thing.

[twomp]

Assad would "welcome" U.S. troops to Syria, on his termsDAMASCUS, Syria -- Syria’s President Bashar Assad says he would welcome U.S. troops into his country to help fight ISIS militants (http://www.cbsnews.com/isis/) “without any hesitation” if the Trump administration espouses a “clear political stance, not only with regards to (the fight against) terrorism, but also about Syria’s sovereignty and unity.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bashar-assad-trump-welcome-us-troops-isis-sovereignty-respected/

Nice try. Being disingenuous again.


Assad: US military forces in Syria are 'invaders'

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad scoffed and questioned US actions in Syria, calling American troops deploying to the country "invaders" because he hadn't given permission for them to enter the country and saying there's been no "concrete action" from the Trump administration toward ISIS.

"Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one," Assad said.

"And we don't think this is going to help. What are they going to do? To fight ISIS? The Americans lost nearly every war. They lost in Iraq, they had to withdraw at the end. Even in Somalia, let alone Vietnam in the past and Afghanistan, your neighboring country. They didn't succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/11/middleeast/syria-conflict-isis-us-military/

I'll repeat that last quote for you.

They didn't succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions."

[dannno]

I'll repeat that last quote for you.

They didn't succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions."

That was a reference to all of our previous wars, none of which happened under the Trump admin.



Nice try. Being disingenuous again.

Incorrect - I said that if we were there to fight ISIS, Assad would welcome us. The key phrase if we were there to fight ISIS. Assad said, specifically, if we were there to fight ISIS, he would welcome us into the country.

I've already discussed why our military might be mucking around and not sticking to the mission Trump presented them with, which is to fight ISIS, but that is irrelevant to my statement, which was very clear.