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

[Mechanicos]

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.

Is the enemy defeated, are they still a threat, are they stronger now then they were?
Last I saw we were still being threatened here at home by those we defeated in battle. War is about survival.

[geronl]

Trump and others who now oppose the annihilation of the Saddam regime

Similarly his 2000 book, The America We Deserve Trump noted Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and targeted Iraq strikes had little impact on their overall capabilities. The Donald said the best course might be against Iraq to “carry the mission to its conclusion."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-there-being-zero-proof-he-opposed-iraq-before-the-w?utm_term=.jvDPWvdLe#.rxVKZY1kq

[geronl]

Is the enemy defeated, are they still a threat, are they stronger now then they were?
Last I saw we were still being threatened here at home by those we defeated in battle. War is about survival.

Saddam Hussein's regime is defeated and is weaker for sure. Saddam's regime is no longer a threat.

[Mechanicos]

Saddam Hussein's regime is defeated and is weaker for sure. Saddam's regime is no longer a threat.

So I guess there is no Islamic terrorism left... Nor are there any WMD's in Islamic control....

War is about survival. If the enemy can still harm you its not over. The goal of war is to defeat the enemy and secure your own survival. Are we there? No, we still have communism, we still have the Caliphate expansion. Our survival is still under threat.

[geronl]

War is about survival. If the enemy can still harm you its not over.

Right, it'll be over when you are the last human on Earth.

[Mechanicos]

Right, it'll be over when you are the last human on Earth.

When we won WW2 we made sure the enemy could not start up again to harm us. They lost their military production etc. We had treaties in place etc.  In the Mid East we did not stop the threat, slowed it a little but its back and stronger then before - not because of our troops but our leadership not letting our troops do their job.

[geronl]

When we won WW2 we made sure the enemy could not start up again to harm us.

We did not win WW2 because there are still Japanese and Germans out there! 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Is the enemy defeated, are they still a threat, are they stronger now then they were?

Iraq was defeated, and were weaker than they were.  We smashed their best divisions, and captured a shitload of them.  I know because I was there.

Last I saw we were still being threatened here at home by those we defeated in battle. War is about survival.

You're redefining words to defend a stupid statement by Trump.  We fought the Iraqi Army in 1991, and the Iraqi Army is not threatening us now.  And even if it was, all that would mean is that we screwed up the 2003 Iraq War, not that we lost the Gulf War.

You'd be much better off, and be doing Trump a favor, by acknowledging that this wasn't the wisest statement.  When you reflexively defend every single thing the guy does, people tune you out, and so your arguments won't convince anyone even when you and he happen to be right.

[NavyCanDo]

When we won WW2 we made sure the enemy could not start up again to harm us. They lost their military production etc. We had treaties in place etc.  In the Mid East we did not stop the threat, slowed it a little but its back and stronger then before - not because of our troops but our leadership not letting our troops do their job.

Except for Election 2016 where Trump says "I would go back into Iraq  and take the oil and I'd put troops to protect the oil." has Trump ever supported a full invasion and unconditional surrender?   Sure can't back that up with anything he has ever said during the Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 years.    It's all stump speech rhetoric.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

When we won WW2 we made sure the enemy could not start up again to harm us. They lost their military production etc. We had treaties in place etc.  In the Mid East we did not stop the threat, slowed it a little but its back and stronger then before - not because of our troops but our leadership not letting our troops do their job.

By this same logic, World War One also was "just a battle" (or even a loss) because Germany was at it again 20 years later.

And your whole argument about wars and battles destroys Trumps own point.  Because based on what you're now arguing, it is impossible to say that we won or even lost a war, because the fighting is still ongoing.  It's all just one big battle with the winners and losers yet to be determined.  So even by your own standard, Trump's argument falls apart.

Defending the indefensible isn't a good look for anyone, and it's going to look even worse when he backpedals in a few days, and you're hanging out there having defended something that even he won't defend.

[Norm Lenhart]

By this same logic, World War also was "just a battle" because Germany was at it again 20 years later.

And you're whole argument about wars and battles destroys Trumps own point.  Because based on what you're now arguing, it is impossible to say that we won or even lost a war, because the fighting is still ongoing.  It's all just one big battle with the winners and losers yet to be determined.  So even by your own standard, Trump's argument falls apart.

Defending the indefensible isn't a good look for anyone, and it's going to look even worse when he backpedals in a few days, and you're hanging out there having defended something that even he won't defend.

No, he will be back diverting the issue yet again, lying through his teeth about it and inventing excuses that end with "Trump is great and you support Clinton".

Because thats what he does every time Trump changes position. Which invariably is on every position he takes. History for Trump and his "Baghdad Bob" are what they are.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, he will be back diverting the issue yet again, lying through his teeth about it and inventing excuses that end with "Trump is great and you support Clinton".

Because thats what he does every time Trump changes position. Which invariably is on every position he takes. History for Trump and his "Baghdad Bob" are what they are.

I don't understand why, though.  You just destroy your own credibility by reflexively supporting every single thing the guy does.  People just stop listening.  Heck, it would be smart to disagree with him once in a awhile just to make the point that you're applying some independent thinking.

[GrouchoTex]

I don't understand why, though.  You just destroy your own credibility by reflexively supporting every single thing the guy does.  People just stop listening.  Heck, it would be smart to disagree with him once in a awhile just to make the point that you're applying some independent thinking.

Which is one of the most baffling aspect of some of Trump supporters.
I like Cruz, but I thought he was wrong on a few issues.
His initial endorsement of raising the amount of H1B visas, for instance.

[Norm Lenhart]

I don't understand why, though.  You just destroy your own credibility by reflexively supporting every single thing the guy does.  People just stop listening.  Heck, it would be smart to disagree with him once in a awhile just to make the point that you're applying some independent thinking.

All kidding aside:

You assume that he and those like him are people of honest intent and good will even if they hold a different position. Thats not the case.

He does one thing. Defend anything Trump says/does. No matter the consequence. Two if you include attacking anyone that does not adopt a Free Republic level of devotion to the cause. That is the action of either a campaign staffer/paid disruptor or a crazy person.

He has been caught in numerous lies about posters. He has literally gone to FR to drum up talking points to 'rebut' people here and been caught, along with another Gang of 5'ish TBR member, doing it. He has totally ignored smackdowns from management on his "You are a Hillary supporter" crap and in fact has a tagline to the mods trying to say his browser disallows PMs to him.

He does this because he wants a liberal elected. He does this because he is opposed to conservatism and constitutional governance.

None of that is honest or the actions of an honest/good willed individual. The history is what it is.

[kevindavis007]

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?   

Cause he supposedly protected the Christians in Iraq

[ABX]

...... in fact has a tagline to the mods trying to say his browser disallows PMs to him.....

Which is patently false as well. PMs are a forum function, not a browser function. They do not use any pop ups or external content that can potentially be blocked by any browser add-on. If you can post an article and read an article here, you can read PMs because they use the same basic function.

[Mechanicos]

Which is patently false as well. PMs are a forum function, not a browser function. They do not use any pop ups or external content that can potentially be blocked by any browser add-on. If you can post an article and read an article here, you can read PMs because they use the same basic function.

Stop slandering me, I do not see pings. Palemoon with Script block etc does not show anything when somebody does the @ thing.

I get mail, but no pings.

[Norm Lenhart]

Stop slandering me, I do not see pings. Palemoon with Script block etc does not show anything when somebody does the @ thing.

I get mail, but no pings.

I use Palemoon. I have no issue with @ tags.

"Please Note Mods. PM's do not work on my browser. If you want to send me a message please use the mail. Otherwise i may never see them."

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Why do you people pay any attention to anything put out by Eric Erickson? Really hes a paid tool of the Establishment who is not your friend.

Why lie about it? Erick Erickson didn't write this.

Do you have any proof that either Jay Caruso is incorrect in what he wrote or that Reid J. Epstein misquoted Trump?

[ABX]

Stop slandering me, I do not see pings. Palemoon with Script block etc does not show anything when somebody does the @ thing.

I get mail, but no pings.

PMs are not pings, they are messages, and yes, you do get them. At that, any member can go to the bottom of the page and see 'Who'se online' and we can see the note "using messenger" when you or anyone is sending a message to someone, so yes, we can see this.

Also, if script-block stopped PMs, you wouldn't be able to post the prior message. A PM is just a private thread, same script function.  (also, I use scriptblock and still get pings- that's a forum function, so even if we were talking about pings, that still wouldn't apply)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Battles are not wars. Battles are only part of war.
Oh and the cold war?

You might ask the residents of Berlin and Poland about that among others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8904456/Ronald-Reagan-statue-unveiled-in-Warsaw.html

[Mechanicos]

PMs are not pings, they are messages, and yes, you do get them. At that, any member can go to the bottom of the page and see 'Who'se online' and we can see the note "using messenger" when you or anyone is sending a message to someone, so yes, we can see this.

Also, if script-block stopped PMs, you wouldn't be able to post the prior message. A PM is just a private thread, same script function.  (also, I use scriptblock and still get pings- that's a forum function, so even if we were talking about pings, that still wouldn't apply)

I do not get @pings that is a truth whether you believe it or not. So when I got banned and they said I was warned via a @ping - that is why I started putting that in there. Its most likely because I do not have messenger and will not install it since its so unsecured. 

[Norm Lenhart]

I do not get @pings that is a truth whether you believe it or not. So when I got banned and they said I was warned via a @ping - that is why I started putting that in there. Its most likely because I do not have messenger and will not install it since its so unsecured.

Not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. I use the same browser you do and mine works fine.

[ArneFufkin]

I would wager that Trump was making more of an editorial comment about the courage and skill of America's political leadership than any denigration of the courage and skill of our troops.

[txradioguy]

I would wager that Trump was making more of an editorial comment about the courage and skill of America's political leadership than any denigration of the courage and skill of our troops.

Given his prior comments about us...I wouldn't take that wager.