Is Trump making the same mistake as past presidents have by declaring victory too early over ISIS?
26-30, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
soar2newhighs Best Comment
Let's review: Trump says we beat ISIS, Obama said the war on terrorism was over, Bush stood beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished". All IMO politically designed to further their agendas. The terrorists, be they ISIS, or other jihadist movements may have stepped back some, but they're by no stretch, going to abandon their war against the "Infidels".
Northwest · M
@soar2newhighs
I am not aware that he said that. His comments were on Dec 5th, 2015:
In response to that WH address, Trump said
Trump's "win" against ISIS, is nothing more than propaganda. ISIS lost influence, due to its own repressive practices, and it was allowed to melt back into "less radical" groups, like Nusra, and other Islamic Syrian opposition groups.
Obama said the war on terrorism was over
I am not aware that he said that. His comments were on Dec 5th, 2015:
As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris, and I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it.
In response to that WH address, Trump said
“there was something going on” with Obama because he refused to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,”
Trump's "win" against ISIS, is nothing more than propaganda. ISIS lost influence, due to its own repressive practices, and it was allowed to melt back into "less radical" groups, like Nusra, and other Islamic Syrian opposition groups.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/23/obama-global-war-on-terror-is-over@Northwest
Northwest · M
@soar2newhighs hmm, thanks for the link. This was in 2013, and it certainly does not say that "the war on terrorism is over", far from it. From the article:
Turns out he's right. We cannot "invade" ISIS or Al Qaeda. They are not countries, or large armies. It's about the individuals and what motivates them to commit terror.
"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.
Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."
Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon," he said. "So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."
Turns out he's right. We cannot "invade" ISIS or Al Qaeda. They are not countries, or large armies. It's about the individuals and what motivates them to commit terror.
View 7 more replies »
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Northwest Thanks North. Someone already had provided that helpful information.
I learned later that he intends to pull our troops out of Syria. I think that's a mistake. Same mistake Obama made when he pulled us out of Iraq. We apparently have decimated ISIS in Syria, but the ISIS snake is alive and well elsewhere. When we leave, it will leave a vacuum that ISIS or some jack-wad terror group like it will fill.
I learned later that he intends to pull our troops out of Syria. I think that's a mistake. Same mistake Obama made when he pulled us out of Iraq. We apparently have decimated ISIS in Syria, but the ISIS snake is alive and well elsewhere. When we leave, it will leave a vacuum that ISIS or some jack-wad terror group like it will fill.
monkeysdevil007 · 46-50, M
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
If he can cut the head off the snake it will be finished. I believe that they were being trained in Paraguay, 15,000 Arabs living in that country for what other reason? And the Bush’s own at least 25 square miles of land there with a huge underground compound.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cherokeepatti He participated - but no, that was Reagan's baby.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@cherokeepatti I'll watch absolutely nothing happen lmao. Again.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@QuixoticSoul Reagan was told to choose him as running mate,he wouldn’t have been elected had he not. Same with Kennedy and Johnson.
SW-User
Not if it also translates to withdrawing from engagement in that conflict at the same time. If we’ve got no plans to wind down that effort, then the actions won’t match the words. I’d hope he’s getting his information from the Pentagon and not just throwing a red herring.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@PikachuTrainer Dude, we positively set the Middle East on fire - no, it wouldn’t be bloodier without our intervention. It would be static, with far less death.
Remember, Iraq alone clocked in at almost a million dead civvies.
Remember, Iraq alone clocked in at almost a million dead civvies.
PikachuTrainer · 26-30, M
@QuixoticSoul you better brush up on your history mate, the middle east has always been a quagmire of death due to the warring Islamic factions and there would be far more death without our interventions.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@PikachuTrainer In this century - absolutely not, that’s pretty much impossible to argue. Hundreds of thousands less lives would have been lost if we simply stayed out.
It’s pretty tough to argue for the 20th too.
It’s pretty tough to argue for the 20th too.
LegendofPeza · 56-60, M
Nukes, you say? My money is on Kim to let the first one fly, and if not the N. Koreans, then the Iranians. They're both feverishly working on becoming a major world power with nuclear arsenals to back them up, and we can only hope their bluster is nothing more than that, because when one is launched, retaliatory strikes are a given. @LegendofPeza
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@soar2newhighs The Iranians haven’t resumed their nuclear program despite our withdrawal from the deal. I think “feverishly” is the wrong way to put it.
Besides, I don’t see a first strike in the cards for either of those nations. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.
Besides, I don’t see a first strike in the cards for either of those nations. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.
I agree-and not necessarily touting the man, but I tend to believe that both NK and Iran's military leaders have some serious reservations about their actions while Trump is President. Though I will concede the fact that despite the "summit", Kim played Trump like Yo-Yo Ma plays his cello....flawlessly.@QuixoticSoul
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
I don’t know if they’re all gone from Syria or not but if you don’t cut off the monsters head, it will live on. And it could come back and bite Trumps butt.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SimplyTracie ISIS in Syria is doomed. The SAA will finish the job.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
He needs anything to get the headlines away from his local issues
bijouxbroussard · F
...and things with Turkey, the U.S. troops and the Kurdish is a bit volatile, and could be major cause for future problems in the middle east, and as far as relations with a NATO ally (Turkey)@bijouxbroussard