Trump Shows His Ignorant Side And Takes A Dump On 40 Years Of Military Excellence

[NavyCanDo]

Goal post change noted. Since it had nothing to do with the issue I accept your conceding the main point.

Goal post changed?  I'm conceding?      Trump's point and yours is America's Military doesn't win anymore. I and others offer evidence to the contrary. And that because Trump opposed going into Iraq in the first place there would have been no war to win or lose. Just a Iraq with a evil regime still dominating the region with hundreds of scuds pointed at Israel. The only one that should concede and admit we are right about the Persian Gulf War should be you.

[RedHead]

See my remark above. I hadn't read your post, and so duplicated it word-for-word.

It's OK.  Great minds think alike.

[RedHead]

There is a difference between a battle and a war. Who owns Kuwait now? That's right the enemy. Funny win when the enemy controls all we fought over.

Why are they the enemy now and not the enemy then?

[geronl]

Goal post changed?  I'm conceding?      Trump's point and yours is America's Military doesn't win anymore. I and others offer evidence to the contrary. And that because Trump opposed going into Iraq in the first place there would have been no war to win or lose. Just a Iraq with a evil regime still dominating the region with hundreds of scuds pointed at Israel. The only one that should concede and admit we are right about the Persian Gulf War should be you.

Trump was rah-rah for going after Saddam Hussein before he was against it

[RedHead]

I did. the issue was war not a battle. The article claims we won Iraq because of the the Gulf war was a battle - we lost the war obviously. Same with Panama we do not have it, same with all the others. The article misrepresents battles with wars. Yes we won battles I was in a couple but we lost the wars. So trump is correct and the article misrepresents battles as wars.

So...wars are only won when we have the land and are pumping the oil out of it.  Anything else - Korea, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, Panama, Grenada - are all losses.  Does that sum up Trump's definition of winning?

[EC]

There is a difference between a battle and a war. Who owns Kuwait now? That's right the enemy. Funny win when the enemy controls all we fought over.

What the bleep you smoking?

[RedHead]

The military guys were great...

For a bunch of losers.

[txradioguy]

Trump’s opposition to the war was well documented.

All the way back to his draft dodging in the 60's.

[RedHead]

What the bleep you smoking?

Probably Trump Cigars.

[kevindavis007]

We don't fight wars of conquest

If we did, we are no better than the Empires that had rose and fallen.. We are not an Empire.

[Norm Lenhart]

Probably Trump Cigars.

Monica
Mechanicos...

The similarities are there...

[NavyCanDo]

Trump was rah-rah for going after Saddam Hussein before he was against it

He was all over the place in 2003 on the Persian Gulf War. One could find as many quotes from him saying it was a mistake, as those saying it was a good thing -  Impossible to nail down.  But one thing is clear is it was a good thing - when it affects his bottom line. Here is a telling conversation he had with Cavuto.

Trump, March 21, 2003: Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they’re obviously taking it a little bit for granted that it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re going to see after the war is over.

Cavuto: What do you mean?

Trump: Well, I think Wall Street’s just going to go up like a rocket even beyond and it’s going to continue and – you know we have a strong and powerful country and let’s hope it all works out.

Cavuto: … Why are you so optimistic?

Trump: Well, I think a couple of things. I really feel that the key is that interest rates — beyond the war interest rates are going to have to stay stable and low. That’s going to be very important.

But you have to like this so Presidential, so Commander and Chief quote the best:

“War is depressing, but something like the Miss USA pageant is positive and brings you out of that funk.”    Donald Trump

[geronl]

Trump endorsed War in Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/19/trump-endorsed-iraq-invasion-in-2002-radio-interview.html

I think he also wrote in one of his early books that something had to be done to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Of course now Trump thinks the world is better off with insane dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi around.

[NavyCanDo]

If we did, we are no better than the Empires that had rose and fallen.. We are not an Empire.

 

[geronl]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/16/donald-trump-s-insane-praise-of-saddam-hussein.html

Trumps insane praise of Saddam Hussein

“You know, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.” Trump should’ve stopped there and then focused on the intelligence errors leading up to the Iraq War. But, of course, he didn’t. Instead Trump then praised the former Iraqi leader saying, “But one thing about him: He killed terrorists.” He even said it a second time: “Saddam Hussein understood and he killed terrorists.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-moammar-gadhafi-saddam-hussein/

Trump: World would be '100%' better with Hussein, Gadhafi in power

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists. He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now it's the Harvard of terrorism," Trump said. "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."

[Norm Lenhart]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/16/donald-trump-s-insane-praise-of-saddam-hussein.html

Trumps insane praise of Saddam Hussein

Oh he killed 'Terrorists'. Everyone was a 'terrorist'. It was a rotating cast of 'terrorists' that coincided with who upset him on a given day.

But he did kill 'terrorists'.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I did. the issue was war not a battle. The article claims we won Iraq because of the the Gulf war was a battle - we lost the war obviously.

That's just wrong -- the Gulf War was a war, not a battle.  There were multiple different battles within that war, short as it was.

To argue that the Gulf War was just a "battle" is like arguing that the Arab-Israeli '56 War, the Six-Day war in '67, and the Yom Kippur War in '73 were all just "battles" too.  Worse, even, because there was more than 12 years between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  So no, Trump is simply wrong on this.  The only two wars we've lost since Vietnam are (arguably) Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Hoodat]

There is a difference between a battle and a war. Who owns Kuwait now? That's right the enemy.

Iraq was the enemy.  They don't own Kuwait.

[geronl]

Revolutionary Battle, Battle of 1812, Civil Battle, Spanish-American Battle....

[ABX]

Oh he killed 'Terrorists'. Everyone was a 'terrorist'. It was a rotating cast of 'terrorists' that coincided with who upset him on a given day.

But he did kill 'terrorists'.

Yep, one day a terrorist is an Iranian that sneaks into the country, the next day, those sneaky terrorists disguise themselves as the Iraqi Olympic soccer team and terrorise by losing, the next day, why they disguise themselves as an entire city of Kurds the he may or may not have gassed.

[ABX]

Iraq was the enemy.  They don't own Kuwait.

Not to mention, Kuwait owns Kuwait now and they are an ally.

[Hoodat]

The only two wars we've lost since Vietnam are (arguably) Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both wars were won by the previous President.  Both victories were given away by the current President.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There is a difference between a battle and a war. Who owns Kuwait now? That's right the enemy. Funny win when the enemy controls all we fought over.

As someone who is also a combat Marine veteran, and whose battery had some fun direct fire action as part of the task force that took the Kuwaiti Airport, you are wildly wrong on this.  The same Al-Sabah family that ruled Kuwait prior to the Gulf War, that was ejected by Saddam, and restored by us, is still in power.  If you're going to claim that "the enemy" controls Kuwait, then that's just you disagreeing with our political and military support of that regime in the first place.  Whether you agreed with the goals of that war or not, that war accomplished exactly what it set out to do -- eject Iraq from Kuwait.  Whether the goal should have been to replace Saddam is a different question, but you can't judge the success of a war based on your opinion that the desired political result should have been different.  We accomplished what we set out to do.

That's a victory.

This is coming from someone who has decided to hold his nose and vote for Trump.  But I really, really wish he would stop saying stupid stuff like this, because it is not going to help him with undecided voters.

[NavyCanDo]

Oh he killed 'Terrorists'. Everyone was a 'terrorist'. It was a rotating cast of 'terrorists' that coincided with who upset him on a given day.

But he did kill 'terrorists'.

Trump and others who now oppose the annihilation of the Saddam regime completely ignore the fact that between January and February of 1991, 38 Iraqi Scud missiles landed in Israel (four others fell short and landed in the West Bank). The bombardment started on January 18, when Tel Aviv and Haifa were hit by 8 Scuds, and continued for several weeks. Six missiles fell in the Negev, apparently aimed at the nuclear reactor in Dimona.  With the news media showing images of Israeli children in bunkers with gas mask on, and with the fresh memory of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait , how could anyone with a sense of decency still think removing Saddam was a mistake?   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

how could anyone with a sense of decency still think removing Saddam was a mistake?   

I've always justified the 2003 Iraq war like this:

Al Qaeda was ticked at the U.S. because we remained in Saudi Arabia long after the Gulf War was over, instead of leaving as we had said we were going to do.  That was the basis for OBL's first fatwa against us.  The reason we had to stay there was because Saddam was being a douche, and refusing to comply with all the material terms of the 1991 ceasefire.  In other words, Saddam remaining in power and playing both sides against the middle with respect to WMD's (telling the West/U.N. that he didn't have them, while telling other Arab governments -- and Iran -- that he did) was forcing us to keep a permanent major troop presence in Saudi Arabia, which is something we did not want to do.

So, we had two options:  Either keep significant forces in the ME permanently to contain Saddam, or eliminate the cancer once and for all so we could eventually leave.  That's over and above the undisputed fact that he had breached the 1991 ceasefire.  Truth is, we're closer to leaving the ME permanently now than we were in the late 90's or 2000.  We'd still have all those forces sitting in Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam.  Had Obama not screwed up Iraq, it would likely be fine as well by now.