Posted on 06/23/2025 6:02:48 AM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
FACT: Trump has been the MOST vocal enemy of the Neocon policy of "forever wars." He's the one who first dared to say this on the debate stage in 2016, shocking everyone. Remember? But we cannot let the specter of "forever wars" stop us from EVER taking military action, if necessary. And sometimes in history such things are necessary. A brilliantly executed strike on the nuclear facilities of blood-thirsty Islamic lunatics is not the same thing as the utopian idiocy of trying to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into Ohio and Iowa. Trump's track record should give us confidence that he understands all of this better than anyone, and that what he ordered yesterday he did with caution and trepidation, because he thought it necessary for America -- and because he wants peace. So we should trust him and pray for him every day, that he continue to have the wisdom to do what needs to be done. Some fights really are NECESSARY, but most will run away from them, giving all kinds of reasons for running. For an illustration of this, see HIGH NOON with Gary Cooper. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Oops here it is…
FACT: Trump has been the MOST vocal enemy of the Neocon policy of “forever wars.” He’s the one who first dared to say this on the debate stage in 2016, shocking everyone. Remember? But we cannot let the specter of “forever wars” stop us from EVER taking military action, if necessary. And sometimes in history such things are necessary. A brilliantly executed strike on the nuclear facilities of blood-thirsty Islamic lunatics is not the same thing as the utopian idiocy of trying to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into Ohio and Iowa. Trump’s track record should give us confidence that he understands all of this better than anyone, and that what he ordered yesterday he did with caution and trepidation, because he thought it necessary for America — and because he wants peace. So we should trust him and pray for him every day, that he continue to have the wisdom to do what needs to be done. Some fights really are NECESSARY, but most will run away from them, giving all kinds of reasons for running. For an illustration of this, see HIGH NOON with Gary Cooper. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sorry for the dupe. But it is worth repeating.
Sounds like every other Bush Doctrine excuse.I saw John Bolton on TV just now ans he is absolutely thrilled.
there is a HUGE difference in attacking with missiles and putting troops on the ground.
I was 100% for the Persian Gulf wars... until we put boots on the ground.
I would of approved of making glass parking lots of many Islamic cities after 9-11. But instead we sent out men in to die on the ground and then rebuild!
Considering the Israelis are in now trying to complete the job, I’m not so sure of that.
Et tu, Eric?
“Sounds like every other Bush Doctrine excuse.”
Then you’re either not paying attention or you’re not smart enough to grasp the differences between Trump and Bush.
My money is on the latter.
L
Fully agree, I have always been opposed to protracted, be nice, don’t offend the locals warfare that became politically popular after WW2.
But... sometimes you just have to punch the bully in the nose.
I was taught at a young age to avoid a fight if possible, but defend yourself and your friends.
Go in fast, go in hard, go in to win and then walk away.
People as a whole learn from example. Be strong, don’t be a bully, help your friends, avoid your enemies.
You don’t hire your friends, they are friends or they are not. If not, okay - as long as they don’t mess with me or my friends.
If an ally needs to be bought they are not trustworthy, nor dependable if called upon.
Said another way:
There is going to be a fight, lets get it started and over with.
There are more fights to start.
Your ad hominem just shows me you don’t have an argument.
Third option is paid agitator. I suspect some of the perpetually aggrieved to be so. Difference of opinion on a couple core convictions is one thing. Against everything the man does is sus.
Pointing up facts is not an attack. Neither is pointing up your inability to comprehend the current situation.
L
Sez the poster who like 9yrLurker never offers some alternative solution to the Iran vexation.
1. Iran’s mullahs either develop a nuke or
2. they do not develop a nuke
Which option do you favor? 1 or 2?
Just because Bolton is for it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. A foreign policy driven by “not Bolton” is shortsighted.
“”But we cannot let the specter of “forever wars” stop us from EVER taking military action, if necessary.””
And this is in response to all of the propaganda bashing Trump and Netty in response to Iran’s wet dream of wiping both Israel and America off the face of the planet. But alas... the truth will, per usual, be ignored by these cretins and will be twisted into yet more propaganda. It’s how cretins roll.
“”Sounds like every other Bush Doctrine excuse.I saw John Bolton on TV just now ans he is absolutely thrilled.””
Well with all due respect.... only an idiot would craft a policy based on what one other idiot gets thrilled by.
One doesn't work, and one does.
Let's go beyond the specifics of one military campaign vs. another, and just ask ourselves a simple question: Under what circumstances is it OK for the United States to engage in military action against a sovereign nation?
“Under what circumstances is it OK for the United States to engage in military action against a sovereign nation?”
When that nation has a 40 plus year history of murdering Americans.
Any other silly questions?
L
EXCELLENT post. Agree 100%. Thank you.
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.