WWTBAM Bored

Spock wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opin ... state.html

And what, pray tell, did Trump do to "win the war," other than continue the Obama policies in regard to the Islamic state. The drive to take Mosul was underway (and harshly criticized) by Trump during the tail end of the Obama presidency. Please point to one thing Trump did other than bombastic rhetoric, to defeat the Islamic state.

This article is like claiming that Harry Truman won World War II because he was President when the Japan surrendered. And Truman had much more to do with the final outcome than Trump did because he did authorize the dropping of the atomic bomb, whereas the most Trump did was drop the Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan.

silverscreenselect wrote: This article is like claiming that Obama got Osama bin Laden.

Fixed it for you.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: This article is like claiming that Obama got Osama bin Laden.

Fixed it for you.

Obama did give the order. And you can bet that if the mission had gone badly and resulted in the loss of several Seals that the Republicans would have launched years of investigations into it, no matter how fruitless, just like Benghazi.

One thing about Obama and Truman. The buck stops here.

One thing about Trump. It's never his fault.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opin ... state.html

And what, pray tell, did Trump do to "win the war," other than continue the Obama policies in regard to the Islamic state.

Trump clarified U.S. policy, cooperating with Russia (at the expense of some anti-Assad Syrians backed by McCain) and Turkey and Iraq (at the expense of the Kurds), but not with Assad or Iran.

I agree with the author of this piece.

One of the few things Trump has done that I can agree with is letting the generals take over the management of the military in military matters, whether through lack of interest or actual strategy and tactics.

As far as Spock's headline, presidents don't win wars. But Trump deserves credit for what the armed forces and the diplomats have accomplished thus far. If you don't give credit when it is due, you devalue your opinions.

mrkelley23 wrote: One of the few things Trump has done that I can agree with is letting the generals take over the management of the military in military matters, whether through lack of interest or actual strategy and tactics.

As far as Spock's headline, presidents don't win wars. But Trump deserves credit for what the armed forces and the diplomats have accomplished thus far. If you don't give credit when it is due, you devalue your opinions.

Essentially, what you're saying is that Trump didn't do what he usually dos: namely, stick his nose in where it doesn't belong, shoot his mouth off, and screw things up. If you want to give him credit for that, so be it, but that's a very low bar.

The major offensive against Mosul was already underway during Obama's presidency and Trump criticized it. Of course that offensive, along with everything else involving boots on the ground against the Islamic state was accomplished by other countries' troops, not our own. But my question is what did Trump do differently that changed the trajectory of the war.

It's the same thing with the economic figures he touts. Our economy has been progressing at roughly the same rate for the last few years, and that has continued under Trump. Now, assuming this tax bill passes and the economy markedly changes, one way or another, then it's fair to assign credit or blame to Trump. But otherwise, things are going along at the same pace they were before.

I will confess that my level of attention to foreign policy over the last several years has been significantly lower than my attention to domestic policy (as far as I'm concerned, Russian interference in our election process is domestic policy) and I don't feel able to express an informed opinion on this issue. I'm interested in learning whether Donny actually managed to get something right. Would someone care to educate me, preferably with some links to reasonably neutral sources? Thanks very much. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: One of the few things Trump has done that I can agree with is letting the generals take over the management of the military in military matters, whether through lack of interest or actual strategy and tactics.

As far as Spock's headline, presidents don't win wars. But Trump deserves credit for what the armed forces and the diplomats have accomplished thus far. If you don't give credit when it is due, you devalue your opinions.

Essentially, what you're saying is that Trump didn't do what he usually dos: namely, stick his nose in where it doesn't belong, shoot his mouth off, and screw things up. If you want to give him credit for that, so be it, but that's a very low bar.

The major offensive against Mosul was already underway during Obama's presidency and Trump criticized it. Of course that offensive, along with everything else involving boots on the ground against the Islamic state was accomplished by other countries' troops, not our own. But my question is what did Trump do differently that changed the trajectory of the war.

It's the same thing with the economic figures he touts. Our economy has been progressing at roughly the same rate for the last few years, and that has continued under Trump. Now, assuming this tax bill passes and the economy markedly changes, one way or another, then it's fair to assign credit or blame to Trump. But otherwise, things are going along at the same pace they were before.

It is possible for lack of action to be better than, or greater than, action. Trump let others direct the action (again, whether through lack of interest or a delegation of power, I don't know) and the results have been far superior to Obama's, where he did things like setting a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (big mistake), escalating the tension in Syria with no end-game that I could see (history will judge), and waffling on Guantanamo (not something I know enough about to know whether it will work out for the best or not.)

If you can get past the bluster (which I have a hard time doing), what Trump has actually accomplished on the foreign relations front has been mostly positive. I tend to think that's probably due to others like Tillerson and professional diplomats, especially since Trump is not crowing about it on Twitter, but I think he deserves at least some credit here. YMMV.

mrkelley23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote: One of the few things Trump has done that I can agree with is letting the generals take over the management of the military in military matters, whether through lack of interest or actual strategy and tactics.

As far as Spock's headline, presidents don't win wars. But Trump deserves credit for what the armed forces and the diplomats have accomplished thus far. If you don't give credit when it is due, you devalue your opinions.

Essentially, what you're saying is that Trump didn't do what he usually dos: namely, stick his nose in where it doesn't belong, shoot his mouth off, and screw things up. If you want to give him credit for that, so be it, but that's a very low bar.

The major offensive against Mosul was already underway during Obama's presidency and Trump criticized it. Of course that offensive, along with everything else involving boots on the ground against the Islamic state was accomplished by other countries' troops, not our own. But my question is what did Trump do differently that changed the trajectory of the war.

It's the same thing with the economic figures he touts. Our economy has been progressing at roughly the same rate for the last few years, and that has continued under Trump. Now, assuming this tax bill passes and the economy markedly changes, one way or another, then it's fair to assign credit or blame to Trump. But otherwise, things are going along at the same pace they were before.

It is possible for lack of action to be better than, or greater than, action. Trump let others direct the action (again, whether through lack of interest or a delegation of power, I don't know) and the results have been far superior to Obama's, where he did things like setting a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (big mistake), escalating the tension in Syria with no end-game that I could see (history will judge), and waffling on Guantanamo (not something I know enough about to know whether it will work out for the best or not.)

If you can get past the bluster (which I have a hard time doing), what Trump has actually accomplished on the foreign relations front has been mostly positive. I tend to think that's probably due to others like Tillerson and professional diplomats, especially since Trump is not crowing about it on Twitter, but I think he deserves at least some credit here. YMMV.

It sounds like you're going over to the Dark Side.

Bob Juch wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Essentially, what you're saying is that Trump didn't do what he usually dos: namely, stick his nose in where it doesn't belong, shoot his mouth off, and screw things up. If you want to give him credit for that, so be it, but that's a very low bar.

The major offensive against Mosul was already underway during Obama's presidency and Trump criticized it. Of course that offensive, along with everything else involving boots on the ground against the Islamic state was accomplished by other countries' troops, not our own. But my question is what did Trump do differently that changed the trajectory of the war.

It's the same thing with the economic figures he touts. Our economy has been progressing at roughly the same rate for the last few years, and that has continued under Trump. Now, assuming this tax bill passes and the economy markedly changes, one way or another, then it's fair to assign credit or blame to Trump. But otherwise, things are going along at the same pace they were before.

It is possible for lack of action to be better than, or greater than, action. Trump let others direct the action (again, whether through lack of interest or a delegation of power, I don't know) and the results have been far superior to Obama's, where he did things like setting a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (big mistake), escalating the tension in Syria with no end-game that I could see (history will judge), and waffling on Guantanamo (not something I know enough about to know whether it will work out for the best or not.)

If you can get past the bluster (which I have a hard time doing), what Trump has actually accomplished on the foreign relations front has been mostly positive. I tend to think that's probably due to others like Tillerson and professional diplomats, especially since Trump is not crowing about it on Twitter, but I think he deserves at least some credit here. YMMV.

It sounds like you're going over to the Dark Side.

Actually, it sounds as if he thinks for himself.

Bob Juch wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Essentially, what you're saying is that Trump didn't do what he usually dos: namely, stick his nose in where it doesn't belong, shoot his mouth off, and screw things up. If you want to give him credit for that, so be it, but that's a very low bar.

The major offensive against Mosul was already underway during Obama's presidency and Trump criticized it. Of course that offensive, along with everything else involving boots on the ground against the Islamic state was accomplished by other countries' troops, not our own. But my question is what did Trump do differently that changed the trajectory of the war.

It's the same thing with the economic figures he touts. Our economy has been progressing at roughly the same rate for the last few years, and that has continued under Trump. Now, assuming this tax bill passes and the economy markedly changes, one way or another, then it's fair to assign credit or blame to Trump. But otherwise, things are going along at the same pace they were before.

It is possible for lack of action to be better than, or greater than, action. Trump let others direct the action (again, whether through lack of interest or a delegation of power, I don't know) and the results have been far superior to Obama's, where he did things like setting a deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (big mistake), escalating the tension in Syria with no end-game that I could see (history will judge), and waffling on Guantanamo (not something I know enough about to know whether it will work out for the best or not.)

If you can get past the bluster (which I have a hard time doing), what Trump has actually accomplished on the foreign relations front has been mostly positive. I tend to think that's probably due to others like Tillerson and professional diplomats, especially since Trump is not crowing about it on Twitter, but I think he deserves at least some credit here. YMMV.

It sounds like you're going over to the Dark Side.

That's my problem, I don't have a side. I guess I'm just round. (Cue Louie Anderson jokes)

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:It sounds like you're going over to the Dark Side.

That's my problem, I don't have a side. I guess I'm just round. (Cue Louie Anderson jokes)

The people without sides tend to make the most sense. I wish there were more people without sides....

lb13

jarnon wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/opin ... state.html

And what, pray tell, did Trump do to "win the war," other than continue the Obama policies in regard to the Islamic state.

Trump clarified U.S. policy, cooperating with Russia (at the expense of some anti-Assad Syrians backed by McCain) and Turkey and Iraq (at the expense of the Kurds), but not with Assad or Iran.

lol - I can always tell when someone is super sincere, and truly wants honest discourse about his question when it starts with .., "pray tell, ..."

tlynn78 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And what, pray tell, did Trump do to "win the war," other than continue the Obama policies in regard to the Islamic state.

Trump clarified U.S. policy, cooperating with Russia (at the expense of some anti-Assad Syrians backed by McCain) and Turkey and Iraq (at the expense of the Kurds), but not with Assad or Iran.

lol - I can always tell when someone is super sincere, and truly wants honest discourse about his question when it starts with .., "pray tell, ..."

I have to break the habit of responding thoughtfully in a topic devoted to trading partisan insults.

jarnon wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

jarnon wrote:Trump clarified U.S. policy, cooperating with Russia (at the expense of some anti-Assad Syrians backed by McCain) and Turkey and Iraq (at the expense of the Kurds), but not with Assad or Iran.

lol - I can always tell when someone is super sincere, and truly wants honest discourse about his question when it starts with .., "pray tell, ..."

I have to break the habit of responding thoughtfully in a topic devoted to trading partisan insults.

lol, right?