|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 29, 2017 18:30:25 GMT
Note the headline: www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-allowed-isis-fighters-escape-raqqa-sdf-deal/U.S. quietly let hundreds of ISIS fighters flee RaqqaNote the last sentence of the "article": "A Pentagon spokesman says the United States was not part of the deal, but also says the U.S. was not prepared to bomb buses full of women and children." So CBS and the BBC accuse the US of "letting terrorists go." LOL Would CBS and the BBC have approved of the US bombing buses full of women and children? Of course not. The role of the "press" is to criticize ALL ACTIONS of the US, except when the president is a Democrat. All they care about is trying to discredit Trump in any way they can. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 29, 2017 20:05:58 GMT
Pretty typical. I can just hear Matt Lauer droning on and on about the heartless bombing of women and children.
Ooh... Maybe not!
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 1, 2017 5:33:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 3, 2017 20:31:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 4, 2017 5:47:34 GMT
If the U.S. was not party to the deal, what was stopping Trump from bombing the hell out of and obliterating the ISIS convoy? I have come expect Bevo to shy away from my uncomfortable questions. But you? |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 4, 2017 17:05:59 GMT
If the U.S. was not party to the deal, what was stopping Trump from bombing the hell out of and obliterating the ISIS convoy? I have come expect Bevo to shy away from my uncomfortable questions. But you? Answered above. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 18:23:33 GMT
I have come expect Bevo to shy away from my uncomfortable questions. But you? Answered above. He doesn't read the things he didn't post. Makes it difficult to converse. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2017 7:01:51 GMT
He doesn't read the things he didn't post. Makes it difficult to converse. Ok, hot shot. What was tiger's answer? You play the game of pretending that you know an answer to something, when you don't. But, heretofore, tiger hasn't been afraid to directly answer a question. In fact, I was so impressed that he answered my recent series of questions to James Howell that I let him off the hook. If it was the link he provided, it didn't work for me. If it was his original conjecture that CBS and the BBC wouldn't approve, then he is suggesting that Trump fears the media more than he is committed to protecting our national security. It would be a stretch to consider either an answer to my simple question. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 5, 2017 16:03:47 GMT
He doesn't read the things he didn't post. Makes it difficult to converse. Ok, hot shot. What was tiger's answer? You play the game of pretending that you know an answer to something, when you don't. But, heretofore, tiger hasn't been afraid to directly answer a question. In fact, I was so impressed that he answered my recent series of questions to James Howell that I let him off the hook. If it was the link he provided, it didn't work for me. If it was his original conjecture that CBS and the BBC wouldn't approve, then he is suggesting that Trump fears the media more than he is committed to protecting our national security. It would be a stretch to consider either an answer to my simple question. You didn't need the link, CPA quoted the last line of the story, WITH the answer from the Pentagon. "A Pentagon spokesman says the United States was not part of the deal, but also says the U.S. was not prepared to bomb buses full of women and children." I don't know why you don't read the posts. I assume that you can comprehend things when you read them. Maybe, that's where I'm off the rails? |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 5, 2017 20:44:08 GMT
Today's fake news example:
There was no subpoena. This was requested months ago by Mueller. This is planted fake news by the media.
It just now surfaces today for the sole purpose of being able to ambush Trump on a potential redline of how far he might let Mueller go in looking at his family's financial records.
|
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2017 23:44:20 GMT
Ok, hot shot. What was tiger's answer? You play the game of pretending that you know an answer to something, when you don't. But, heretofore, tiger hasn't been afraid to directly answer a question. In fact, I was so impressed that he answered my recent series of questions to James Howell that I let him off the hook. If it was the link he provided, it didn't work for me. If it was his original conjecture that CBS and the BBC wouldn't approve, then he is suggesting that Trump fears the media more than he is committed to protecting our national security. It would be a stretch to consider either an answer to my simple question. You didn't need the link, CPA quoted the last line of the story, WITH the answer from the Pentagon. "A Pentagon spokesman says the United States was not part of the deal, but also says the U.S. was not prepared to bomb buses full of women and children." I don't know why you don't read the posts. I assume that you can comprehend things when you read them. Maybe, that's where I'm off the rails? I did read that, of course. As I said, it sounded exactly like Obama giving ISIS (the “JV”) a free pass across the northern Iraqi desert. Now, these ISIS militants are free once again to wreak mayhem in northern Africa and Europe, courtesy of Donald Trump’s political correctness and isolationism. That takes us back to my original question of why didn’t we bomb the hell out of these terrorists - and their families - when we had the perfect opportunity? Trump proved to be every bit as feckless as Obama. And, the ISIS terrorists now know that, with Trump at the helm, they can hide behind civilians with absolute impunity. Did Ronald Reagan hold back bombing Khadafi when he knew that his family was in the compound? A real leader puts America’s national security ahead of political correctness. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2017 0:08:22 GMT
You didn't need the link, CPA quoted the last line of the story, WITH the answer from the Pentagon. "A Pentagon spokesman says the United States was not part of the deal, but also says the U.S. was not prepared to bomb buses full of women and children." I don't know why you don't read the posts. I assume that you can comprehend things when you read them. Maybe, that's where I'm off the rails? I did read that, of course. As I said, it sounded exactly like Obama giving ISIS (the “JV”) a free pass across the northern Iraqi desert. Now, these ISIS militants are free once again to wreak mayhem in northern Africa and Europe, courtesy of Donald Trump’s political correctness and isolationism. That takes us back to my original question of why didn’t we bomb the hell out of these terrorists - and their families - when we had the perfect opportunity? Trump proved to be every bit as feckless as Obama. And, the ISIS terrorists now know that, with Trump at the helm, they can hide behind civilians with absolute impunity. Did Ronald Reagan hold back bombing Khadafi when he knew that his family was in the compound? A real leader puts America’s national security ahead of political correctness. I never said you had to agree with the answer... only that you quit pretending that no answer was given. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 6, 2017 0:22:38 GMT
Ok, hot shot. What was tiger's answer? You play the game of pretending that you know an answer to something, when you don't. But, heretofore, tiger hasn't been afraid to directly answer a question. In fact, I was so impressed that he answered my recent series of questions to James Howell that I let him off the hook. If it was the link he provided, it didn't work for me. If it was his original conjecture that CBS and the BBC wouldn't approve, then he is suggesting that Trump fears the media more than he is committed to protecting our national security. It would be a stretch to consider either an answer to my simple question. You didn't need the link, CPA quoted the last line of the story, WITH the answer from the Pentagon. "A Pentagon spokesman says the United States was not part of the deal, but also says the U.S. was not prepared to bomb buses full of women and children." I don't know why you don't read the posts. I assume that you can comprehend things when you read them. Maybe, that's where I'm off the rails? Trump has assigned the problem of ISIS to the Saudis and the GCC. He is letting them handle it and they are doing a great job. We are taking the position of a consultant, instead of forcing others to come to our way of thinking. This is Trumps strategy in action. Creating leverage is how he handles everything. Now, with the worlds largest economy and military, he essentially has unlimited leverage and can get much greater cooperation across the globe. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 6, 2017 16:30:51 GMT
I did read that, of course. As I said, it sounded exactly like Obama giving ISIS (the “JV”) a free pass across the northern Iraqi desert. Now, these ISIS militants are free once again to wreak mayhem in northern Africa and Europe, courtesy of Donald Trump’s political correctness and isolationism. That takes us back to my original question of why didn’t we bomb the hell out of these terrorists - and their families - when we had the perfect opportunity? Trump proved to be every bit as feckless as Obama. And, the ISIS terrorists now know that, with Trump at the helm, they can hide behind civilians with absolute impunity. Did Ronald Reagan hold back bombing Khadafi when he knew that his family was in the compound? A real leader puts America’s national security ahead of political correctness. I never said you had to agree with the answer... only that you quit pretending that no answer was given. Bull. Here was my very simple question: “If the U.S. was not party to the deal, what was stopping Trump from bombing the hell out of and obliterating the ISIS convoy?” The correct answer is that NOTHING was stopping Trump from bombing the hell out of and obliterating the ISIS convoy. Trump had the option to do so, but instead caved to political correctness. Ronald Reagan didn’t give a damn about the blowback that was certain to come. In the same way he directly confronted and challenged Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate, he defied the naysayers when he bombed Khadafi’s compound. In Trump’s first real challenge wearing the hat of Commander-in-Chief, Trump put political correctness over the national security interests. No different than Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2017 17:25:19 GMT
The correct answer is that NOTHING was stopping Trump from bombing the hell out of and obliterating the ISIS convoy Clearly, that is NOT the "correct answer"... because, something DID stop him from doing it. All actions have consequences. I trust that Trump and his advisors weighed the various options and made a decision consistent with their overall strategy. I'm also pretty confident that this strategy is better than Obama's... at least, it seems to be far more successful thus far. |
|
