A War Trump Won

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.

Isis works for the Saudis??? Now that's BS. The Saudis are cleaning house as we speak.

It's not BS. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar all had a hand in the growth of ISIS. ISIS was whahabbist at its core. SA and Qatar supplied the money and Turkey the route for men and arms to make their way into Syria. That S.A. now seems to have had a Change of heart is good news but there is ample evidence the House of Saud wanted to topple Assad BAMN.

You never wondered why ISIS didn't drive South into the Saudi Oilfields when they had the chance?

What you miss is the House of Saud is divided, for arguments sake, say 1/3 love the money and debauchery, 1/3 radical, fundamental Islam and say 1/3 that sticks their wet fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before opining.

All factions wealthy. The big boss didn't move as there was no meaningful support from the U.S....(Obama). Now? Cleaning house.(With Trump's support and I'd bet threats if they didn't clean house.) Both individuals and their bank accounts.

As far as SA's oil fields go, even Isis know if they mess with Europe's oil supply, the leashes would come off and they'd be hammered...so no, I didn't wonder why they didn't hit the oil fields.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.

Isis works for the Saudis??? Now that's BS. The Saudis are cleaning house as we speak.

It's not BS. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar all had a hand in the growth of ISIS. ISIS was whahabbist at its core. SA and Qatar supplied the money and Turkey the route for men and arms to make their way into Syria. That S.A. now seems to have had a Change of heart is good news but there is ample evidence the House of Saud wanted to topple Assad BAMN.

You never wondered why ISIS didn't drive South into the Saudi Oilfields when they had the chance?

What you miss is the House of Saud is divided, for arguments sake, say 1/3 love the money and debauchery, 1/3 radical, fundamental Islam and say 1/3 that sticks their wet fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before opining.

All factions wealthy. The big boss didn't move as there was no meaningful support from the U.S....(Obama). Now? Cleaning house.(With Trump's support and I'd bet threats if they didn't clean house.) Both individuals and their bank accounts.

As far as SA's oil fields go, even Isis know if they mess with Europe's oil supply, the leashes would come off and they'd be hammered...so no, I didn't wonder why they didn't hit the oil fields.

Not a very good defense of SA's actions there..... The evidence is there. SA's Leaders were the geniuses behind toppling Assad with hardcore Fundamentalist Sunnis. Who bred those Jihadis? The Wahabbis that a who. Who funded them? Same answer.

I'm glad the new Leader to be of SA has seen the light so to speak. Now he has to stay alive while he carries out this change.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.

Isis works for the Saudis??? Now that's BS. The Saudis are cleaning house as we speak.

Sigh, I don't 'defend' SA's actions...nor do I ignore Iran in that game, which apparently you do. Seeing I don't want to dig all that up on this thread, suffice to say, the House of Saud gets 'a stay of execution' as long as they continue Their current efforts. I have no use for SA any more than I do for Iran and their puppet Assad.

It's not BS. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar all had a hand in the growth of ISIS. ISIS was whahabbist at its core. SA and Qatar supplied the money and Turkey the route for men and arms to make their way into Syria. That S.A. now seems to have had a Change of heart is good news but there is ample evidence the House of Saud wanted to topple Assad BAMN.

You never wondered why ISIS didn't drive South into the Saudi Oilfields when they had the chance?

What you miss is the House of Saud is divided, for arguments sake, say 1/3 love the money and debauchery, 1/3 radical, fundamental Islam and say 1/3 that sticks their wet fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before opining.

All factions wealthy. The big boss didn't move as there was no meaningful support from the U.S....(Obama). Now? Cleaning house.(With Trump's support and I'd bet threats if they didn't clean house.) Both individuals and their bank accounts.

As far as SA's oil fields go, even Isis know if they mess with Europe's oil supply, the leashes would come off and they'd be hammered...so no, I didn't wonder why they didn't hit the oil fields.

edit on 18-12-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Trump is the only President I've ever seen trying to wage a propaganda war to discredit any media that disagrees with him. He is TERRIFIED of the media's power.

Lmao, someone who is scared of the media doesn't tweet a meme where he's tacking a guy with a CNN logo on his head, if anything it shows he isn't afraid to return fire. And you really are asleep if you're trying to say the MSM is on the right end of the propaganda war, it's truly stunning how you seem to believe you're so "woke" but couldn't be more deeply asleep.

a reply to: pavil

An explanation isn't a defense. I have no love for SA. I also have no love for Assad, Iran's puppet. Apparently you do.

The seeing the light, as you say, is due to Trump. That is what has changed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this poll by the same people that were doing the exit polls that had Hillary winning the election ?

a reply to: pavil

Do you have any proof he voted for Hillary?

originally posted by: Regnor
a reply to: pavil

Do you have any proof he voted for Hillary?

Just the OP. It said endorse, not voted. I tried looking up but ran into the Great Pay Wall of the New York Times. Stopped looking. He's seems the Never Trump type from titles of his pieces. Can't stand those so called Conservatives.

a reply to: pavil

I tried looking up but ran into the Great Pay Wall of the New York Times.

Hint. Try using a "private window" in Firefox.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: pavil

An explanation isn't a defense. I have no love for SA. I also have no love for Assad, Iran's puppet. Apparently you do.

The seeing the light, as you say, is due to Trump. That is what has changed.

If by love you mean a Stable Syria Under Assad rather than the heart eating Syrian rebels or ISIS, then yes. Call me crazy. One where 4 Million Syrians (1 out of every 6) didn't flee their country and another 3.6 Million didn't get internally displaced. One where 400,000 Syrians didn't die. I'd have Loved that.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Source

NY Times columnist praises Trump for winning against ISIS, hits media for not giving credit

Ross Douthat, who previously endorsed Hillary Clinton, wrote that the Trump administration surprised him in foreign policy, namely in the war on ISIS that Trump has won.

“If you had told me in late 2016 that almost a year into the Trump era the caliphate would be all-but-beaten without something far worse happening in the Middle East, I would have been surprised and gratified,” Douthat wrote

Douthat wrote that Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq – which he calls “the defining foreign policy calamity of Barack Obama’s second term” – were effectively routed by Trump without the need of a massive ground troop invasion and without getting into a war with Russia or Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Douthat wrote that it is a “press failure” for succumbing to “the narrative of Trumpian disaster” and ignoring the story.

Source

A scathing indictment of the Media, Obama's failure and a clear indication that the Media is working against the US government and are the real closest allies to Vladimir Putin and enemies of the State. Putin's own media propaganda machine couldn't dream of working against the US government and attacking the moral of the People like our own Media is currently engaging in.

I don't know what to say about this... stunned, frankly.

I doubt you'll hear him critical of the ignorance of left media again... he just violated a religious tenet of the Anti-Trump faction... and they wuill probably ruin his career or marginalize him.

That said... kudos to him for doing something truly amazing in this day and age... HIS JOB.

Maybe he can make a living as a real journalist down the road... after the post mortem on American media has been done, and what real journalists that are left rebuild the 4th Estate.

Hope it happens in my lifetime.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

There seems to be a lot more work to be done before we can say ISIS has been defeated or that any "war" has been won.

I also believe that it has been Russia themselves that had the biggest impact in ISIS and their efforts in Syria.

The bigger battle was getting them out of Iraq. Russia was certainly beating them back in Syria... but they had overrun parts of Iraq and taken a lot of territory.

There is NO reason we shouldn't be working with the Russians in dealing with terrorism... other than the war monger lefties left over from Obama and Clinton that seem hell bent on starting a new cold war.

a reply to: dasman888

There is NO reason we shouldn't be working with the Russians in dealing with terrorism.

We do and have. As long as it is in the interest of both. Terrorism makes for strange bedfellows.

Now, about that Ukraine thing. And don't get me started on the Kurds.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Source ad homs fall flat. It's a sign of intellectual shallowness. Debunk their logic or method. And are you seriously arguing that 80% negative is A-OK, but 90 is just a road to far? LOL

It is customary to provide a source with as little bias as possible. Source bias is a mark against the sources trustworthiness before even reading. Regardless, of course there is more negative news about Trump than positive. His approval ratings are in the toilet. Did it ever occur to you that the sea of negativity towards Trump isn't a conspiracy but a reflection of a sizable portion of the country?

originally posted by: dasman888

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

There seems to be a lot more work to be done before we can say ISIS has been defeated or that any "war" has been won.

I also believe that it has been Russia themselves that had the biggest impact in ISIS and their efforts in Syria.

The bigger battle was getting them out of Iraq. Russia was certainly beating them back in Syria... but they had overrun parts of Iraq and taken a lot of territory.

There is NO reason we shouldn't be working with the Russians in dealing with terrorism...

I really do not care whom we work with to fight against ISIS. Russia is no exception.

other than the war monger lefties left over from Obama and Clinton that seem hell bent on starting a new cold war.

I'm not sure that really means much at all. Obama and Clinton are not/were not Leftists.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: pavil

An explanation isn't a defense. I have no love for SA. I also have no love for Assad, Iran's puppet. Apparently you do.

The seeing the light, as you say, is due to Trump. That is what has changed.

If by love you mean a Stable Syria Under Assad rather than the heart eating Syrian rebels or ISIS, then yes. Call me crazy. One where 4 Million Syrians (1 out of every 6) didn't flee their country and another 3.6 Million didn't get internally displaced. One where 400,000 Syrians didn't die. I'd have Loved that.

I have no use for either. I have even less use for us being there and picking sides. Isis was/is an international issue and for that reason I support relegating it into a local issue for the locals to sort out.

After that? Screw 'em. Let them sort out their own mess, without nukes. I couldn't care less who wins out.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That's fine. But I value stability there over chaos. It's not that I like Assad , it's that the alternatives are far worse. Destroying a country with no real strategic plan for the afterwards is folly to me.

I used to be of the mind of just letting them all kill each other, that didn't work out like I had hoped. I thought we were backing reasonable opposition to Assad, that seems to have been a lie. Powers were shaping the policy in the shadows.

The more I researched the more it became clear.

Hate to sound this way, but if Russia didn't intervene, I think this would be a far worse mess than it is. ISIS came pretty close to achieving it's goals.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: nwtrucker

That's fine. But I value stability there over chaos. It's not that I like Assad , it's that the alternatives are far worse. Destroying a country with no real strategic plan for the afterwards is folly to me.

I used to be of the mind of just letting them all kill each other, that didn't work out like I had hoped. I thought we were backing reasonable opposition to Assad, that seems to have been a lie. Powers were shaping the policy in the shadows.

The more I researched the more it became clear.

Hate to sound this way, but if Russia didn't intervene, I think this would be a far worse mess than it is. ISIS came pretty close to achieving it's goals.

I agree that Russia's intervention was timely. I point a finger at Obama, at least to some degree, for arbitrarily removing the troops from Iraq which, even if not a deliberate act to create/induce an Isis as many have claimed, certainly enhanced it.

Assad is too connected and involved with Iran to receive the same mulligan that SA is now enjoying. That is the real problem here. Until that U.S.-Iranian issue is sorted out, Assad is at risk. Rightly or wrongly. That is what is clear to me.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's the old middle east proverb: better the devil that I know than the devil I know nothing about.

Assad isn't crazy. He's a ruthless dictator, but he's not crazy.

All of this is Obama's fault. He was left an improving situation in Iraq and he blew it badly. He had a chance to hurt Hezbollah's financial network and he dropped the ball. He almost lost Egypt for Gods sake. His over all Middle Eastern policy was a disaster.

Trump is picking up the pieces that Obama left in shambles.

a reply to: pavil

I think the Iran-Assad issue will be decided between Putin and Trump. There's the real potential for a stabilized ME. How that one plays out is anyone's guess, but Russian-U.S. relations will improve vastly as Trump continues to stabilize D.C..