Strike on a US base in Iraq but...

a reply to: Bigburgh

Do we know they were in fact militia that were hit? How can we determine who is telling the truth? There was an awful lot of confusion surrounding the strike in terms of who ordered it and who knew about it. I’ve heard rumors that it wasn’t militia but a nuclear facility to just the basic info that it was retaliation. To me the whole thing stinks and I dont think we are getting the truth

originally posted by: blueman12

Trump wasn't anti-war either though.

I get that you don't like Trump, but he did all he could to AVOID any new wars. What do you call that?

a reply to: network dude

I would call that being better than Bush. No idea if he was better than Obama or not. Like ive said before, increasing civilian deaths via drone strikes, canceling the drone strike report, and giving weapons to saudi arabia are not anti-war stances. Nor did Trump make a serious effort to leave Iraq or Aghanistan.

Point being, just because he didn't start a new war, doesn't mean he was anti-war.

Why are you or anyone else settling for "he didn't start a new war" as a special achievement?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: network dude

I would call that being better than Bush. No idea if he was better than Obama or not. Like ive said before, increasing civilian deaths via drone strikes, canceling the drone strike report, and giving weapons to saudi arabia are not anti-war stances. Nor did Trump make a serious effort to leave Iraq or Aghanistan.

Point being, just because he didn't start a new war, doesn't mean he was anti-war.

Why are you or anyone else settling for "he didn't start a new war" as a special achievement?

Because Trump is an isolationist and wants the USA to operate like the UK does.

The UK sells copious amounts of weapons across the world and hardly anyone bats an eyelid.

Trump does it? Omfg, shock horror!

Did he send young Americans to die? No.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Honestly don't know much about the UK's foreign policy. And what's wrong with criticizing Trump for it?

I don't understand this notion that if Trump didn't start a new war or send troops somewhere, then he shouldn't be criticized..

Trump did some draconian stuff. It should be noted and not ignored because he wasn't another Bush.
Same with Biden, he's not starting a new war or sending troops to die. But he is doing some sketchy things also that should be held to criticism.

a reply to: blueman12
Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, and greenlighted the destruction of yemen by the GCC, i would say Trump is signifigantly better than Obama in that regard. But hey! ... Orange man bad bro.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Everytine i criticize Trump, do i have to make a note that I don't think Obama, Biden, Bush, ect.. were peace makers either.

Is it so hard to say, "Trump canceling the drone strike report was a bad move", without saying; "But Obama", "well, he didn't start any new wars", "Bush started it", or some other whataboutism?

I criticized every POTUS, the only people i see on ATS that idolize and refuse to criticize, are some of the Trump supporters.

a reply to: blueman12

I don't know if you remember it, but one of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S big campaign promises was to end the war in the middle east. He ended up sending more troops instead of bringing them home. The only troops he brought home were on their normal rotation. Obama also gave iran billions - in cash - and allowed them access to billions more. No one knows what percentage of that money was used to fund terrorists and/or attacks on the US and our allies.

Trump was railed against as a hater xenophobe GOP war monger from day one. He is also the first POTUS in a while to not start a war. That is very strange behavior for a race hating xenophobic war monger. Behavior worthy of praise. And not one apology from the many who called him those names after he failed to meet their slanderous expectations.