Posted on 01/04/2023 4:02:11 PM PST by MarMema
“Trump gave Russian forces minutes to evacuate their airfield. Trump Orders Missile Attack in Retaliation for Syrian Chemical Strikes”
It was STUPID of Trump to do that attack. I suspect, knowing what he knows now, he regrets it.
(I’m not paid to blindly support anyone, be it Trump, Putin, She, or anyone else, so I will call out dumb things, regardless of who does it)
Trump failed when he gave the Russians warning.
He learned later when US Special Operations fighting ISIS in Syria, were attacked by Russian Wagner Spetznaz troops. The Russians crossed the agreed upon deconflicting area and then lied that it was them.
Trump ordered an Apache attack along with F18s on the Russian Wagner units, killing nearly 200.
Whatever, we still had NO BUSINESS starting that war.
Trump was definitely against the endless wars. I think he called them “forever wars”.
Most of the world, however, feels that way about us.
We don’t play well with others.
I wonder the same.
I don’t believe that. They have few Russian hit pieces. Lots more on other foreign politics than Russia.
Bogus.
What and who doesn’t the US sanction, if that were true?
A) Then they don't have to come here
B) I don't care
Thanks for the straight communist propoganda
Its nice to see someone who remembers real history. Not the made up history for the politics of the moment. It is a surprisingly common affliction among conservatives.
it is incredible that we have FReepers celebrating what they think is the downfall of the USA...
The Europeans in particular are more dependent on the US than before the Ukraine war and are actually taking serious steps to limit Chinese influence and find business opportunities elsewhere.
“The Neocons snowed him, and I suspect that even YOU know that. It was a White Hat False Flag - classic Neocon move.”
No, I don’t know that. And neither do you.
You see, that is the problem about creating a bogeyman: It is, of course, fictional, and used solely as a foil; even if that foil is a contradiction of the bogeyman itself. Which is what you have done.
Someone put into your ear the bogeyman of “neocon,” so you apply it so broadly that it comes back on itself, such that you yourself become that which you vilify.
US hegemony is already gone. It was a natural result of the rise of China and our own continuing malaise. Biden is just too stupid and senile to realize it.
“Just as I supported most (if not all) of the Neocon interventions during the Cold War, I base my opinion on whether it’s justified.”
But, you see, you have just proved my point, that the term “neocon” is meaningless; BECAUSE it is purely situational: You will support and applaud a “neocon” if you agree with his or her actions, or “justifications;” but you will vilify and condemn that very same “neocon” if you disapprove of his or her actions, or “justifications.”
“I’m not into absolutes, like BLIND SUPPORT of the Neocons, or blind support of any other country.”
Fine. You have just confirmed what I said: The term “neocon” is meaningless. You oppose “blind support” — which is a smart way to be, regardless of the subject — of neocons; but you DO support them if you agree with them. And, in some situations, you clearly DO agree with them, which makes you, by association at the very least, a “neocon.” You are, in fact, that which you condemn. Which makes the term meaningless, UNLESS you accept that you yourself fit the term.
Our “business” is not limited to whether or not something poses a threat to us; our “business” is if that something is in our national interests.
“Trump gave Russian forces minutes to evacuate their airfield.”
Yup.
“Nope, as I noted in a prior post, I don’t blindly follow anyone Democrat, Republican, or Neocon. If the intervention is shown to be in US interests, then I’m good with it. It’s very simple.”
Then you are, by definition, a “neocon” (unless you eschew capitalism), if the situation meets your approval. Democrat and Republican are political parties, and one actively joins enrolls in them; so you can be one or the other even though you do not approve of an action or policy the party has adopted. Whereas, “neocon” is strictly situational. And thus, its broad-brush employment is meaningless.
The Europeans are a very small part of the world.
“Trump was definitely against the endless wars. I think he called them ‘forever wars’.”
That’s true; he was. But he was not against intervention if he thought it was justified. So, by definition, Trump was a “neocon” (a capitalist who supported intervention). That’s why the term, as so broadly applied so often here on FR, is meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.