John Bolton Out as National Security Advisor

| September 10, 2019

John Bolton. (White House Website)

John Bolton submitted his resignation as National Security Advisor. The linked articles talk about different accounts surrounding the resignation. One common theme that comes up is that John Bolton had recommendations that President Trump strongly disagreed with.

It appeared that when it came to Afghanistan, things fell with regards to Bolton and Trump. One claim mentioned their disagreement about the planned meeting with the Taliban at Camp David in order to aid in coming closer to an agreement… Especially close to the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

From NBC News:

Bolton had pushed Trump to take a harder line on other regimes he has deemed untrustworthy. Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on the promise to get the U.S. out of conflicts.

While Bolton has previously pushed for striking Iran and regime change, Trump has indicated he would like to sit down with Iranian officials, and that regime change is off the table.

When asked in the past about his divergent views with Bolton’s, Trump has indicated he didn’t have a problem with his national security adviser giving an opinion that differed from his own.

“I have some hawks,” the president said in a Meet the Press interview earlier this summer. “Yeah, John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay? But that doesn’t matter, because I want both sides.”

This was bound to happen. President Trump has a different approach to dealing with other countries. The “weapon of choice” is economic combined with political. John Bolton was seen as a “war hawk”.

You could read more on NBC News and CNN.

Category: Politics

Comments (146)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. GDContractor says:

    That’s the great thing about Trump! He doesn’t have to be smart. He will hire the smartest people & surround himself with them!
    [end sarc]

    • Club Manager, USA ret. says:

      Bolton was knowledgeable but also a smug super hawk. The way it works is when POTUS says I think we should do it this way, any objection? Then you say, well sir, perhaps trying this may resolve the issue. The Commander responds, thank you for your input, let’s do it this way… You then either salute smartly and support the Commander or resign. Bolton was trying the back door media leak approach to support his turned down positions. I understand his exit safety briefing reminded him to take care and not let the door hit him in the butt on the way out.

      • reddevil says:

        I know, I know, our president is a super genius and is playing four dimensional chess while the rest of his staff, especially Bolton, is playing checkers.

        In reality, though, no one person can really hope to develop sound and comprehensive strategies to pull it all together without a lot of expert help. That’s why we have the National Security Council and National Security Advisor.

        The NSC is supposed to provide options to the President, refine them according to his guidance, and then plan and execute as necessary. They also have an obligation, legally and ethically to provide their best advice. This is easy when they are generally in alignment with POTUS’s views. It is essentially impossible to do when they disagree.

        The President can obviously come up with his own plans, but the NSC system is designed to pull the best advice from the NSC. It’s a very small group- Sec State, SecDef, the VP, and Sec Treasury. They have to work closely together.

        The fundamental issue here is that once again Trump hired a key advisor that is 180 out from his own views- although to be fair it is really hard to know what Trump’s views are because he changes them all the time.

        Bolton was not only extremely aggressive, but he was/is personally an @$$. He was an @$$ before this job, he was an @$$ in this job, and he’ll be an @$$ in the future. He grated on the other members of the NSC, and none of them like him. Hell, Trump didn’t hire him the last time he was looking for an NSA because of the mustache (which I think is his only redeeming characteristic).

        Look at the video of Pompeo and Mnunchin (two NSC members) at their press conference today that was originally scheduled to have Bolton present. They both seem pretty pleased that the dude is gone.

        Did Bolton leak? Who knows, but that is a convenient excuse. That said, this White House has leaked like a sieve since before the inauguration. Again, the real problem here is that the Trump admin looks very chaotic and unstable. we don’t need that right now.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          “Chaos” can be a method. Keeping everyone off-balance facilitates change, especially when the local group culture opposes it. That is the key here.

          “The Swamp” doesn’t like change, and doesn’t want reform. “Go along to get along.” ” Don’t make waves, the wrong way.” Very few people get to DC other than as Swamp critters.

          Trump has this really odd idea that he was elected to do Trump’s thing, as Trump, for the benefit of the Electorate, and not be Swamp gardener v45.

          Ace of Spades has some interesting commentary on Bolton this morning.
          http://ace.mu.nu
          (A good site. Some NSFW links, tagged)
          Seems he leaked to oppose things he could not persuade.

          The classic DC way. Leak to oppose. Allow no change to the (money machine) status quo. Grind down anyone who threatens the Swamp.

          No wonder Trump keeps everyone off balance. The whole thing is re-written to self-perpetuate dysfunction and fiefdom-growth.

          Note how past “reformer” Presidents get captured by the system. Trump has largely avoided that. This may explain why he is also thriving in a job that tends to grind down occupants.

          He -enjoys- the fight. And he plays to win.

          He is persuading life-long Donks to reject “the Party” that abandoned -them-. He is persuading life-long Republicans to see how their party had also been a disappointment.

          Winning.

          Note: if Obama and crew had not shit all over him, he probably would have run as a Democrat, a Kennedy-style one. And won. The Donk party -cannot- tolerate that.

          Now, he is picking off the Americans still left in the Donk party, and leaving the anti-American lunatics and the Clintonista-crooks as the opposition.

          Thus the non-combustible buffer is being removed from the Donk party. The remainder is approaching a hypergolic mixture, just awaiting an ignition point.

          Popcorn?

          • Reddevil says:

            People believe what they want to believe.

            This is not about reform or draining the swamp. Your position makes no sense. Trump put Bolton in the swamp in the first place.

            Trump hired Bolton specifically because of Bolton’s well known, highly publicized views.

            If you think Bolton wanted talks with the Taliban you haven’t been paying attention .

            I thought Bolton was a horrible choice, and I’m glad he’s gone. Trump obviously has the authority to fire him. Not an issue.

            But to claim this is some sort of Trumpiavellian power play is just ridiculous. The only people off balance iare the NSC and the American government. Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David, not the other way around, as part of an inconsistent, sophomoric, bumbling foreign policy.

            • MI Ranger says:

              I agree with 11B-Mailclerk. Trump is playing his game, and playing it well. He hired Bolton because he does not like sycophants, and enjoys a difference of opinion. However Bolton was not willing to accept he wasn’t always going to get his way. It would completely be within Bolton’s play list to leak opposing views to derail something he opposed. Whether he did it or not is the President’s opinion!

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                “I agree with 11B-Mailclerk. Trump is playing his game, and playing it well. He hired Bolton because he does not like sycophants, and enjoys a difference of opinion.”

                Well said and I concur.

              • reddevil says:

                So, why did he fire him? Bolton was a living, breathing difference of opinion. In fact, that is the reason Trump cited for firing his last two NSAs.

                On top of that, Trump is on record as LOVING sycophants: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting

                You guys gotta do better than that. Say it with me: “I respect the President and I like some of Trump’s policies but sometimes he does stupid things because he doesn’t think them through.”

                You’ll feel better, trust me

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  Trump fired him because Bolton forgot who hired him.

                  There is a bunch of that, in politics.

                  Trump is pretty consistent. Get out of your lane often enough, and you are gone.

                  Most commanders I have known would accept contrary opinion, but expected a willingness to obey orders nevertheless. Disloyalty, passive-aggressive plays, and sabotage were … not accepted.

                  Trump seems to have this weird idea that the country elected Trump, and expect of him to be Trump, to do Trump in the Trump way.

                  Weird, eh?

                  The staff don’t call the shots, and are expected to play the Trump tune, or resign. I think he is the sort to make that rather clear, up front. What amazes me is how many folks seem to think “but not -me-“.

                  A foolish conceit. And all to common in DC.

                  You don’t like his ways. Fine. The electorate did, and likely will again in 2020. Got anyone better who can actually win elections?

                  Because I am tired of principled defeat as the best game plan the Repubs, and thus handing the game to the apsehit-moonbat/gangster-corruptocrat alliance of the Donks.

                  At least with Trump we still have a USA that approximates a Constitutional Republic based on the 1787 plan as amended. The opposition? Look real hard.

                  • Reddevil says:

                    The NSAs lane is to develop recommendations for national security. Trump hired a guy that he should have known had views 180 out from his.

                    The NSA has no authority, zero, to direct the actions of any instruments of national power. Is is simply an advisor to the president.

                    Got it, you love Trump. Does that render you incapable of seeing when he is wrong?

                    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                      I don’t like Trump.

                      I like some of what is app opening, that RINOs promised and never delivered.

                      SCOTUS.
                      Federal court changes.
                      Economy actually working for most folks, especially the bottom rungs.
                      Someone at the Resolute Desk that actually loves the USA.

                      Sure, I would do things different. I also couldn’t get elected president. He did,and he is undoing some core cancers. He may yet cause China to address its major fault-lines. Those are not EU flags the Hong Kong Yan are waving.

                      I will live with this oddities. But his admin style works (it is deliberate and purposeful, and working) and he is distracting his opponents much as the Bullfighter does. Or any decent stage magician. And he saved the nation from Clinton. He is also likely to stave off the moonbat/corruptocrat alliance for another 4 years.

                      I am grateful for those.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Reddevil: The NSAs lane is to develop recommendations for national security.

                      Keywords: develop recommendations. It’s up to the decision-maker to choose one of these recommendations or to send those with these recommendations back to the sand table to work out alternative courses of action.

                      Reddevil: Trump hired a guy that he should have known had views 180 out from his.

                      President Trump knew that this guy had views that didn’t match his own… Just as he knew that Mattis didn’t have views that matched his own. However, given the time that they were taken on board, and what was reality back then, bringing them on board was a good decision at the time the decision was made.

                      Reddevil: Got it, you love Trump.

                      I read his posts. This has nothing to do with “love for Trump” and everything to do with what he sees is reality.

                      Reddevil: Does that render you incapable of seeing when he is wrong?

                      Unfortunately for you, you’ve failed to prove him as “being wrong’ in the areas that you’re claiming he’s being “wrong”. What you want others to do is to embrace your opinion of what is the case at the expense of the reality explained in their counter-argument to you.

                • thebesig says:

                  Reddevil: People believe what they want to believe.

                  I believe what the facts, and the pattern that these facts fall into say. The facts indicate that President Trump understands the audience, understands his opposition, does his research, and carries out his plans in a way that confuses those that want to derail his plans.

                  Reddevil: This is not about reform or draining the swamp.

                  It is. Opposition to President Trump’s plan is not just coming from the Democrats, but also from RINOs. It also comes from bureaucrats and from others. The “swamp” is fighting back, and they have a lot to lose if they don’t fight back. The swamp is the status quo, business as usual, your usual politician and bureaucrat, etc. but, President Trump is not your usual politician. He is an outsider, doing things that he had been doing before he ran for president.

                  Reddevil: Your position makes no sense.

                  Your position appears to be based on what you want to believe, and not on the information that there is to see.

                  Reddevil: Trump put Bolton in the swamp in the first place.

                  Bolton was a part of that swamp before Donald Trump ran for president. “Draining the swamp” was one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. However, by necessity, many of the people that he had to bring on board were those who were a part of the swamp. We were able to see, courtesy of the Mueller Investigation, the corruption that is associated with the swamp.

                  Reddevil: Trump hired Bolton specifically because of Bolton’s well known, highly publicized views.

                  At the time that President Trump took Bolton on board, the later was what was needed to bring the president from where he was at, to where he is at now. His interactions with the others, plus his serving his purpose, made his resignation an inevitability.

                  Reddevil: If you think Bolton wanted talks with the Taliban you haven’t been paying attention .

                  As the article, link above, indicated, issues related to Afghanistan contributed to the Trump-Bolton relationship going south.

                  Reddevil: But to claim this is some sort of Trumpiavellian power play is just ridiculous.

                  Not ridiculous, but reality. Corporate CEOs had to deal with the reality that the competitors are studying their every move, doing extensive research, “seeding themselves” as “customers”, etc. They want to fight for market share. President Trump, as businessman Trump, dealt with this and played this game better than most. This included not showing predictability, and keeping the competitors off-balance. He brought this with him into primaries, into the presidential campaign, and into the White House.

                  Reddevil: The only people off balance iare the NSC and the American government.

                  Nope. The majority of his adversaries, and enemies, are consistently caught off balance by his actions. The media is a perfect example of who is consistently getting thrown off balance by President Trump’s actions and statements. He knows how to use words, and actions, to send his adversaries on their search for a false city of gold. In this case, something damaging enough to “derail” President Trump’s ability to finish his first term, or harm his chances of reelection.

                  Reddevil: Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David, not the other way around, as part of an inconsistent, sophomoric, bumbling foreign policy.

                  Nope. President Trump put into action what many in the left said we should do. Many in the left argued that we should “talk to them”, to come to an agreement with them, and to simply get out. President Trump played that card knowing that something like the bombing would happen. He tried it “their” way, and it didn’t work.

            • thebesig says:

              Reddevil: People believe what they want to believe.

              I believe what the facts, and the pattern that these facts fall into say. The facts indicate that President Trump understands the audience, understands his opposition, does his research, and carries out his plans in a way that confuses those that want to derail his plans.

              Reddevil: This is not about reform or draining the swamp.

              It is. Opposition to President Trump’s plan is not just coming from the Democrats, but also from RINOs. It also comes from bureaucrats and from others. The “swamp” is fighting back, and they have a lot to lose if they don’t fight back. The swamp is the status quo, business as usual, your usual politician and bureaucrat, etc. but, President Trump is not your usual politician. He is an outsider, doing things that he had been doing before he ran for president.

              Reddevil: Your position makes no sense.

              Your position appears to be based on what you want to believe, and not on the information that there is to see.

              Reddevil: Trump put Bolton in the swamp in the first place.

              Bolton was a part of that swamp before Donald Trump ran for president. “Draining the swamp” was one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. However, by necessity, many of the people that he had to bring on board were those who were a part of the swamp. We were able to see, courtesy of the Mueller Investigation, the corruption that is associated with the swamp.

              Reddevil: Trump hired Bolton specifically because of Bolton’s well known, highly publicized views.

              At the time that President Trump took Bolton on board, the later was what was needed to bring the president from where he was at, to where he is at now. His interactions with the others, plus his serving his purpose, made his resignation an inevitability.

              Reddevil: If you think Bolton wanted talks with the Taliban you haven’t been paying attention .

              As the article, link above, indicated, issues related to Afghanistan contributed to the Trump-Bolton relationship going south.

              Reddevil: But to claim this is some sort of Trumpiavellian power play is just ridiculous.

              Not ridiculous, but reality. Corporate CEOs had to deal with the reality that the competitors are studying their every move, doing extensive research, “seeding themselves” as “customers”, etc. They want to fight for market share. President Trump, as businessman Trump, dealt with this and played this game better than most. This included not showing predictability, and keeping the competitors off balance. He brought this with him into primaries, into the presidential campaign, and into the White House.

              Reddevil: The only people off balance iare the NSC and the American government.

              Nope. The majority of his adversaries, and enemies, are consistently caught off balance by his actions. The media is a perfect example of who is consistently getting thrown off balance by President Trump’s actions and statements. He knows how to use words, and actions, to send his adversaries on their search for a false city of gold. In this case, something damaging enough to “derail” President Trump’s ability to finish his first term, or harm his chances of reelection.

              Reddevil: Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David, not the other way around, as part of an inconsistent, sophomoric, bumbling foreign policy.

              Nope. President Trump put into action what many in the left said we should do. Many in the left argued that we should “talk to them”, to come to an agreement with them, and to simply get out. President Trump played that card knowing that something like the bombing would happen. He tried it “their” way, and it didn’t work.

          • GDContractor says:

            ““Chaos” can be a method. Keeping everyone off-balance facilitates change…”

            Yes. It is universally a method which results in the shareholders voting for a change in leadership at the top.

            What change? Accelerated borrowing and accumulated debt? Stating that the Donald would have probably run as a Democrat is a weird way to bolster your argument.

            He’s had three years to disentangle us and bring everybody home. We have nothing to offer the Taliban, except to promise them that we will leave. Leaving does not require talks, it requires action. The Taliban knows that we will leave eventually. In the meantime, they are content to create Martyrs and steal from us with each passing day.

            • thebesig says:

              GDContractor: Yes. It is universally a method which results in the shareholders voting for a change in leadership at the top.

              The conservative base’s excitement for President Trump and their support for his policies does not lend to that scenario to happening. What I explained here, with regards to what the President is doing, is also seen by other conservatives.

              The last time I’ve seen this level of excitement for a Republican, Ronald Reagan was in the White House. I lost count of how much I’ve heard that Ronald Reagan’s “recklessness” was going to get all of us killed. He was mocked for “engaging in cowboy diplomacy”. His refusal to settle for “Detente” was one of those “recklessness”.

              His goose was supposed to be cooked before re-election. It was “old man bad”, “old man confused”, “old man sick”. From there, “irresponsible policies”, etc. With all other things being equal, I anticipate that President Trump will win re-election.

              GDContractor: What change?

              There are many changes. One of those changes involves VA care. I use the VA. The changes that came down the pike, after President Trump initiated his policies related to the VA, are noticeable and pleasant.

              Those that were unemployed, but are employed now? They could tell you about the changes that President Trump brought to their lives.

              GDContractor: Accelerated borrowing and accumulated debt?

              I have a copy of a sales letter, for a financial newsletter, that was written in the 1990s. In it, they leveraged the fact that President Clinton had accumulated more debt than his predecessors. The writer did this to build anxiety in the reader. Enter Bush Jr, and he accumulated more debt than Clinton. Obama? Ditto. What you’re seeing is something that had been going on with previous administrations.

              Bottom line, he still has to have many of his bills passed. When you have a Democrat House, and Republican Senate, a lot of bribing with taxpayer money has to happen for both houses to cooperate with each other. Even within each chamber, you have a lot of “bribing with taxpayer money” to get bills passed over to the next chamber.

              Increased debt is a part of the price we pay to get our congressmen to cooperate with each other enough to pass a bill.

              Originally posted by GDContractor: He’s had three years to disentangle us and bring everybody home.

              We have nothing to offer the Taliban, except to promise them that we will leave. Leaving does not require talks, it requires action. The Taliban knows that we will leave eventually. In the meantime, they are content to create Martyrs and steal from us with each passing day.

              Although he opposed going into Iraq, he opposed leaving Iraq when conditions on the ground didn’t dictate that option. This has been his trend so far. The enemy has a vote in everything that we do. Had we just “upped and left”, the enemy would see that as a victory. This would only embolden and strengthen them… And we’d have to deal with a worse problem down the road.

              The ultimate goal for our enemies in that area is global radical Islam. Even if we came up with a genuine agreement that they would’ve temporarily lived up to, they would’ve framed this as a victory for their side and a weakness for our side.

              Yes, they know that we will “leave eventually”. They also believe that their vision of Islam would rule the entire world one day. Just as “leaving requires action”, the radicals will take action on their end. In addition to framing this as a victory, they would end up making a comeback. They would attack and destabilize the Afghan government. They would fight to regain control of Afghanistan,

              The other radicals, in that area, would see them as big winners and would join their ranks. Once they get their way in Afghanistan, they would work to getting their way outside of Afghanistan.

              They, along with other radicals, don’t plan on stopping once they gain control in their areas. They would continue until they expand their control. The victors would accumulate strength, then they would work to re-establish what was once filled by the caliphates and emirates that were once in that area during the Medieval Period. Then, they would work on capturing the Iberian Peninsula and southeast Europe. They would expand into the Philippine Island of Mindanao.

              They would expand into Africa.

              If we just “upped and left”, history would simply repeat itself. The Huns were competing/warring tribes before they were brought together under one rule. Then they effectively turned against the Romans. The Mongols were competing/warring tribes before they were brought together under one rule. Then they were effectively deployed against the Chinese, the Muslim caliphates and emirates, and Europe.

              The situation with ISIS should’ve woken people up to the fact that the same process is repeating itself here.

              We can’t afford to just take action to “up and leave”. We’re dealing with a radical element that has been continuing a war against the West that has been underway since the 7th Century. Northern Africa used to be predominantly Christian and now is predominantly Islam. They intend to make it this way with Europe and both Americas.

              They’ve been fighting the West since the beginning of the Middle Ages. If we are to prevent ourselves from experiencing what northern Africa experienced, it behooves us to fight this for as long as we need to fight this.

              Either we prevail over there, or their radical elements prevail over here. There’s no alternative outcome for these two.

          • thebesig says:

            Originally posted by 11B-Mailclerk:

            “Chaos” can be a method. Keeping everyone off-balance facilitates change, especially when the local group culture opposes it. That is the key here.

            Your assessment, with regards to what President Trump is doing and why, is spot on. He’s dealing with a tougher resistance and headwinds than what Bush Jr. had to face… The mainstream media is very adept at derailing Conservative initiatives with their leftist propaganda. They would’ve been trying to do the same thing to President Trump. His being unpredictable, acting out of the norm, “being chaotic”, etc., has allowed him to get more initiatives on the road, or accomplished, when they otherwise risked derailment.

  2. GDContractor says:

    Hey. Speaking of Trump firing people…did General Mattis write a letter last week or something?

  3. 5th/77th FA says:

    Prerogatives of command? Most Bosses feel that co-operation is doing things their way and being damn quick and efficient about it. Not sure if dTrumpster has gone thru more staff than any other POTUS or not, but they all knew the job was dangerous when they took it. If Bolton was a war mongering Hawk and The Donald wants to disentangle us from the constant warfare of the last 18 years this is a good thing.

    From the articles linked I saw where Mitt Romney (ESAD mofo) thought it was a bad move. That in itself would make me think that it was a GOOD move. Romney (spit), a career politician going to bat for a career gubmint trough slurper. Who’d a thunk. IMO, the biggest problems this country faces is the career politician and gubmit appointees. YMMV

  4. Devtun says:

    Pres Reagan went through the most NSA’s – six in eight yrs. Prez Trump is on pace.

    • reddevil says:

      Yeah, but…

      While Reagan didn’t fire his NSAs, he did have quite a few resign under pressure due to a variety of investigations. Not sure which is worse- a disorganized, chaotic White House, or a White House full of officials under investigations.

    • Helpful Medal says:

      He’s on pace for twelve if he serves eight years. And Iran-Contra was a reason for Reagan’s turnover.

  5. reddevil says:

    Mattis is in the press because he released his book last week, and it is thin on details about his departure from DoD. Some were hoping for some sort of insider info on his resignation. It did contain a reprint of his resignation letter, but that was about it. Mattis is a class act.

    Bolton is not. I never liked the guy as Ambassador to the UN, and I didn’t like him as National Security Advisor, That said, he was definitely a consistent believer in hard power and a practitioner of realpolitik. While I think that in the modern world a more liberal (as in the school thinking in International Relations, not American politics) approach would be better because of all of the economic and cultural ties with both competitors and allies, there is something to be said for consistency.

    The president, on the other hand, can’t seem to pick a strategy, though. I have to disagree with BigSig on this one- our strategy should definitely include all four elements of national power (the Big DIME, Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economy), but President Trump does is not consistent in his approach. Pompeo enables this, by the way, and he would be disastrous as NSA.

    One week he is threatening Kim Jung Un, then sending him love letter. A few months later he is scheduling peace talks with the the Taliban then cancelling them abruptly. Yes, he started the ‘trade war’ with China and cancelled trade agreements, but it was ham fisted with no apparent endgame in mind.

    I know many of you will see this as another example of what a great leader Trump is. I disagree.

    Like Bolton (I don’t) or hate Bolton (I can’t hate him; awesome mustache), this doesn’t speak well for the Trump administration and it makes us look weak on the world stage. Trump picked the guy, and his views on national security were not only well known at the time but notorious.

    Sure, he has the authority to fire him (it is not a ‘right’, it is a power granted him in the Constitution and Title 10 US Code).

    BUT

    This is his third NSA and longest tenured at 500 and something days. It makes our national decision making look weak and uncertain. It is hard to look resolute when you have a public spat with your hand picked advisors.

    Oh, by the way, not only do they have a public disagreement about policy after abruptly cancelling a peace summit, but they then have a girl fight over who broke up with who. My daughter handled breakups more maturely when she was 14. On the heels of Sharpiegate this make Trump look even more petty and vindictive.

    But, hey, at least Bolton won’t get us into the war he always wanted to start (but not fight in)

    https://taskandpurpose.com/john-bolton-trumps-new-war-consigliere-dodged-already-lost-vietnam-war

    This is a bad day for America

    • GDContractor says:

      Advance copy of the next Trump speech:

      “[…] but I have a guy…and he’s gonna fix this shit…and his name’s Not Sure….”

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Oddly, the rest of the world does not seem to be acting as if they see Trump as “weak” or “ineffective”.

      Obama got that sort of thing. Quite a bit.

      They test and try Trump, as they will anyone. But they are certainly not acting as if they see him as ” weak”.

      • Reddevil says:

        How many missiles has DPRK fired this year? https://time.com/5673813/north-korea-confirms-second-rocket-launcher-test/

        How far beyond the previously agreed to levels has Iran taken their nuke program? https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/09/08/irans-nuclear-program-takes-another-step-away-from-accord-as-atomic-deal-unravels/

        How many Taliban attacks leading up to the Trump peace talks?

        How are you measuring weak or innefective,?

        • MI Ranger says:

          RedDevil, the key to understanding if you are effective is not to look at the statistics before you implemented a policy, but the change after you implemented one!
          Let’s see if the Taliban were serious about negotiation: Will they have an armistice to get back tot he table, or fight us every inch until we withdrawal?
          As for little Kim he has tested several missiles, but have any of them been of the type that he said he would not test? (I give you a hint, the answer only has two letters!)
          President Trump understand that to win he has to appease people, but at the same time realize that crossing him has no chance of success (Obama did the opposite…look at Libya). I would not be surprised if Trump is able to sit down with the Iranians within his term(s). Korea really wants to step into the 20th century (if not the 21st), but Kim above all else wants to remain leader, just like the Iranian primary goal is survival of the Regime…all else is long game!

          • Reddevil says:

            You are correct. Time will tell. Maybe Trump’s policies will play out, given time for them to play out.

            But what we are talking about here is how Trump is all over the map, and while no one is sad to see Bolton go, we WERE sad (and more than a little confused) to see him hired in the first place. This is not 4-D chess.

            As far as what our policy should be, a realist would say that US policy for the last several decades has taught the North Korean, Syrian, and Iranian regimes to do exactly what they are doing.

            https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/30/the-world-wants-you-to-think-like-a-realist/

            Although I am a believer in the ability of the liberal* international order to not only prevent war but promote prosperity, I’m all for a consistent realist foreign policy. A CONSISTENT realist foreign policy. Not a made it up as you go along ‘principled realism, America First’ foreign policy that is based more on overreactions to perceived personal slights.

            *Liberal as in Liberal IR theory, meaning ‘free markets’, not liberal as in American political discourse. Thought I should add that, although being at the end of the post I doubt anyone will read it.

            • thebesig says:

              Reddevil: You are correct. Time will tell. Maybe Trump’s policies will play out, given time for them to play out.

              They will. I remember, back in the 1980s, how President Reagan’s policies were going to result in “mass conflagration”. The whole world was simply going to be a mess.

              However, his policies paid dividends and contributed to the Iron Curtain falling. What Ronald Reagan did on the geostrategic and geopolitical level, President Trump is doing at the geoeconomic level.

              I anticipate that just as with Ronald Reagan’s policies, people are going to look back positively at Donald Trump’s policies.

              Reddevil: But what we are talking about here is how Trump is all over the map,

              That is by design. That strategy served him well during his career in the free market. Then this strategy served him well during the primaries, general election, and so far in his presidency. He is keeping his opposition, enemies, and adversaries off balance and unable to try to anticipate where he is going.

              This is key, if you could anticipate what the opposition is going, you would know exactly how to minimize the impact of their intent. If you don’t, you don’t waste time trying to figure that out… Just to come up the wrong conclusion. The fact that you can’t figure this out speaks volumes to the effectiveness of that plan.

              Reddevil: and while no one is sad to see Bolton go, we WERE sad (and more than a little confused) to see him hired in the first place.

              I don’t know who you were talking about. But, given his taking Mr. Mattis on board, it didn’t come as a surprise to me that he would also take Mr. Bolton onboard. As I mentioned in this thread, both served their purpose, and both were brought into the administration because circumstances of their hiring called for it.

              Reddevil: This is not 4-D chess.

              It’s 3D/2D chess. President Trump is thinking several moves ahead of his opposition, and he is “executing maneuvers” designed to keep his detractors, opposition, enemies, adversaries, etc., “moving in the wrong direction” because they can’t figure out what he is doing… Until it is “checkmate”.

              Reddevil: As far as what our policy should be, a realist would say that US policy for the last several decades has taught the North Korean, Syrian, and Iranian regimes to do exactly what they are doing.

              Hence President Trump’s “chaotic” and “inconsistent” policies. They did the same thing for decades and did not suffer much of a consequence. Enter President Donald Trump. A part of the reason that Iran is doing the stuff that they’re doing is that they are feeling the economic pinch.

              They want President Trump to miscalculate a military response so that they could rally their people against us… Instead of where it is now… Against the government and its refusal to play the game with the international community in order to get the sanctions lifted. They’re feeling the pain of their government’s arrogance.

              The longer into the future they go, under these crushing sanctions, they’re going to find their legitimacy become elusive in the eyes of the people. I mentioned elsewhere that their pension funds are going in the red. How loyal would many of those people be when they realize that the policies of the government that they are supposed to support are costing them their pensions?

              In the past, China was able to help circumvent the effects of the sanctions against North Korea. Guess what? China is feeling the economic pinch caused by the trade war. They are going to find that it is going to become harder to do this. Eventually, North Korea is going to feel additional pain, economically, when the Chinese have to cut back on the money train.

              The reality is that there is “a new sheriff in town”.

            • thebesig says:

              Reddevil: Although I am a believer in the ability of the liberal* international order to not only prevent war but promote prosperity, I’m all for a consistent realist foreign policy. A CONSISTENT realist foreign policy.

              We haven’t had that throughout our history. However, there are things that were applied “consistently” with regards to foreign policy.

              Again, going back to Ronald Reagan. The “consistent realist foreign policy” entailed detente. This requires both sides to be of “relatively equal strength” with regards to nuclear capabilities. What did Ronald Reagan do? He threw the “consistency” out and set about achieving strategic superiority. He kicked “detente” out the door and engaged in policies that his predecessors did not engage in.

              As with what they are doing with President Trump today, they did with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They described him as “getting old and senile”, and thus possess the tendency for poor judgment. I lost count of how frequently they criticized his policies, and how they were “supposed to result in bad”.

              None of them materialized. Instead, we had a series of events that included the “fall of the Berlin wall”, the peeling away of Soviet bloc nations, and the eventual “disintegration” of the Soviet Union.

              Ronald Reagan knew that this was eventually going to happen. However, his detractors thought that he was going to mess everything up.

              This history is repeating itself this decade. I anticipate similar results on the positive side of the column.

              Reddevil: Not a made it up as you go along ‘principled realism, America First’ foreign policy

              No, this is not made up. It’s realistic. President Trump, unlike you or traditional politicians, knows what it is like to operate in the free market. With our economy becoming more globally integrated, he has seen how this worked not just within the United States but overseas.

              He has a better grasp of how foreign nations are taking advantage of their arrangements with the United States, at our expense. Some of the things that they were taking advantage of were implemented after World War II to help them recover. However, despite their recovery, they chose to hang onto these arrangements even though they did not need them. It gave them an advantage over us.

              President Trump is forcing the renegotiation of trade deals that preserve the other side being able to take advantage of the United States.

              He is right with regards to America First. Our policies and energy should be focused on pursuing American interests. They should be focused on what is best for America. Whatever is disadvantageous to us needs to be addressed.

              President Trump is “leveling out” the playing field. What is not getting in the news as much is that other countries are willing to negotiate a new trade deal just to be able to keep trading with us. Also, notice how he is picking these fights not at once, but staggered. Once he comes to trade agreements with certain countries, he could focus on others. Divide and conquer.

              There is a pattern with what he is doing.

              Reddevil: that is based more on overreactions to perceived personal slights.

              No, these are not overreactions. Understand that President Trump is leveraging communications technology, and the new communications reality. He is leveraging his ability to speak directly to the American people. Let’s take this constant hammering of the Federal Reserve.

              He, with his experience operating in the free market, knows the benefit of the Federal Reserve taking a course of action. One that President Trump is advocating. He is explaining what could happen if they take one action or the other. If they continue to stand fast with their current action, and it negatively impacts the economy… Then the rank-and-file among the voters will see why.

              This is the kind of information that the mainstream media would deny their audience. President Trump is making sure that this information gets out.

              Reddevil: * Thought I should add that, although being at the end of the post I doubt anyone will read it.

              Well, as you can see, I just read through your post.

        • thebesig says:

          Originally posted by Reddevil:

          How many missiles has DPRK fired this year? [snip]

          How far beyond the previously agreed to levels has Iran taken their nuke program? [snip]

          How many Taliban attacks leading up to the Trump peace talks?

          How are you measuring weak or innefective,?

          First, the theme among your examples is that all are trying to gain leverage against those who they are negotiating with, or are hoping to negotiate with. North Korea, Iran, and the Taliban are doing the equivalent of trying to “negotiating from a higher price”.

          In North Korea’s case, continuing to test-fire missiles. In Iran’s case, moving away from their agreement. The Taliban’s case, getting additional terrorist attacks in.

          This allows them additional “negotiating room”. It is like to start getting together to negotiate a price. One side mentions a higher price, in hopes of negotiating down to their desired price. The other side tries to undercut the price in hopes to negotiate up to their “lower-level”.

          This has nothing to do with the other side assuming President Trump is “weak”. If they were, they would not be raising the stakes higher for them to negotiate down from. If President Trump were weak, they would already be in a position of advantage and strength. They will not have to invent one for themselves.

          Second, by giving them every chance to meet him in terms that he would negotiate under, he pulls the rug from under those he is negotiating with and those who criticize him. If he has to come down hard on all three, he would at least be able to say that he tried to accommodate them.

          Remember all those calls, from the left, about how we should have “given diplomacy a chance” with regards to Iraq? Whether he applies additional tariffs or does some kind of a precision strike, both the enemies/adversaries and the Trump detractors would lose that among other arguments.

          President Trump is strong and effective. The media could ignore or not emphasize this fact all they want, but this fact remains.

    • USMC Steve says:

      We get it reddevil, you are a never Trumper. Got anything else?

      • Reddevil says:

        I’m not a never Trumper. I think he is the legit President of the United States. I agree with many if not most of his policies.

        But when he does something bad I’m going to say so, and I’ll respond to every nonsensical post that tries to pretend it didn’t happen.

        If you don’t like it, just turn up the volume on Fox and Friends- maybe Trump will call or tweet in.

        • Slow Joe says:

          Red Devil, you mentioned sharpie-gate, which is proven fake news. This tells me all I need to know about you, and the kinds of news sources that you swallow.

          NeverTrumper Alert!!!

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            He is more rational than that.

            He overlooks the changes in the courts. The change in the 9th is of particular note. Also, two solid SCOTUS picks, and he may get a third. Those are lasting improvements.

          • reddevil says:

            Joe, I am not sure if you are trying to classify me for further study, insult me, or warn the others so they can escape.

            I don’t know what a NeverTrumper is- if it is short for Never let Trump get away his BS I guess it fits. I think Trump is the legitimate president of the United States and I agree with most of his policies. I also think that his daily actions contribute from all of the above. I do not believe that he is playing a deep game, four steps ahead of the rest of the world to keep our enemies guessing.

            Does that make others AlwaysTrumpers? Always accept everything Trump says no matter what?

            But, as far as SharpieGate, I’m not sure what you mean by fake news.

            Someone clearly modified the map. Was it a Sharpie? I think is was. I don’t think thats the point.

            Is your point that the president didn’t do it? I don’t think that’s the problem either. I neither know nor care who did it.

            What’s revealing about it is that either Trump modified or directed one of his staffers to modify the best estimate of the National Weather Service, or everyone on the staff was so intimidated that they modified the estimate. Either way, not an ideal state of affairs.

            On top of that, rather than issue the classic ‘what the President meant to say’ kind of statement, he has to try to convince us that a) No one knows who modified the map (which, if true, is very scary in and of itself. If the White House Staff allowed the president to display a mysteriously marked map to the nation when lives are on the line we have a whole other set of issues), and b) that he was right all along.

            Altogether amateurish and easily avoidable.

            • thebesig says:

              reddevil: Joe, I am not sure if you are trying to classify me for further study, insult me, or warn the others so they can escape.

              He’s pointing out the fact that you referenced sharpie incident after it was proven to be a “non-issue”. When something is proven to not be a scandal, and you push for it as if it is, that is an indication that despite what you say regarding “agreeing with President Trump” on certain issues, that you’re anti-Trump in action.

              reddevil: I don’t know what a NeverTrumper is- if it is short for Never let Trump get away his BS I guess it fits.

              You just proved to Slow Joe that you fit the description that he provided you. During the election, the “never Trumper” was one who opposed President Trump’s progress towards the nomination. After the nomination, they opposed his progress towards election. After the election, it became something that described people that opposed President Trump’s policies and actions. This is either in part or in full.

              What you are dismissing as “getting away with his BS”, involves him doing legitimate actions. Your disagreement with that action does not make it “BS”. We are looking at the same actions, as evident by my replies to you, and I am not seeing “BS”. I’m seeing a smart move to do things that need to be done.

              reddevil: I do not believe that he is playing a deep game, four steps ahead of the rest of the world to keep our enemies guessing.

              Unfortunately for your argument, the facts indicate that this is precisely what he is doing. I will give you an example. The Chinese thought that we were in a predicament, on the economic front, when we were close to having a deal with them. Result? They slapped additional requirements before they would sign. President Trump backed away from the discussions.

              This move hurt the Chinese more than it hurt us.

              The Chinese economy, it’s progress, size, etc., is propped up by many false projects. It is also propped up by their moves to construct in disputed territories. A lot of that economic growth is illusionary. But, they have to keep borrowing to sustain feeding false projects to give them false economic growth.

              This is increasingly becoming more difficult for them as the trade war progresses. The longer this goes on, the more harm it does to the Chinese than it does to us. On top of that, the Chinese are dealing with the fact that many among the population are seeing the benefits of a Western economic and political system. They are seeing that with Taiwan and Hong Kong. They are seeing that via Chinese who make trips to North America and to Europe.

              The Chinese need money to maintain their legitimacy on the mainland, and to maintain that iron grip on free flow of people and information. Meaning, the longer the Chinese wait this out, the more at risk they have that the government would lose legitimacy and eventually buckle… Paving the way for a Democratic China.

              The deal that President Trump wants them to enter would force them to go down that route anyway.

              When they tried to cheat that deal, to gain an advantage, President Trump walked away. Then, he warned them that if they waited out the election, they would face much tougher terms. China ends up more at a disadvantage as time goes on.

              This is but one of many examples. So yes, he is playing 3D chess against his opposition.

              reddevil: Does that make others AlwaysTrumpers? Always accept everything Trump says no matter what?

              Once again, you’re making an assumption about your argument compared to that of others. A reading of your posts indicates that what you see as “nonsense, BS, wrong, etc.,” is actually the correct course of action and the right policy.

              What I’m doing, and what I see the others doing that you disagree with, is seeing the facts for what they are. This isn’t exactly the “accepting anything that he says no matter what”. It’s us embracing the facts.

              Originally posted by reddevil:

              But, as far as SharpieGate, I’m not sure what you mean by fake news.

              Someone clearly modified the map. Was it a Sharpie? I think is was. I don’t think thats the point.

              Is your point that the president didn’t do it? I don’t think that’s the problem either. I neither know nor care who did it.

              Your mention of “sharpiegate” suggests that you believe that this is a scandal. That’s what gets the “gate” at the end of the word. It doesn’t deserve the “gate” at the end of the word. That’s part of the fake news. “Sharpiegate” implies that the President added to the graphic to “force reality to fit his description”.

              The reality is that this didn’t happen. The president drew that curve knowing that people were going to go in a frenzy over that. In the process of this happening, the map that substantiated President Trump’s Alabama claims would get passed around like wildfire.

            • thebesig says:

              reddevil: What’s revealing about it is that either Trump modified or directed one of his staffers to modify the best estimate of the National Weather Service, or everyone on the staff was so intimidated that they modified the estimate. Either way, not an ideal state of affairs.

              No, not a modification. A person looking at the graphic, and looking at the details, would see that the President was justified in stating that Alabama would either get brushed or hit.

              That graphic shows both a cone of probability and an area of uncertainty. A look at the last estimate of plots of the hurricane positions showed an apparent trend. Without turning, and while continuing on the same track, Alabama risked being brushed against or hit.

              The president did not need to make graphic additions. So, why even add the graphic? As I explained, without that addition, the media would not have been enthusiastic about sharing that graph. That graph clearly showed a possibility that Alabama would either be brushed or hit.

              President Trump knew that by adding the graphic, the media would assume that he “made things up to be right”. In response, they would get that graphic out. In the process of getting the graph out, they would show the actual graph that shows that President Trump’s Alabama statement was reasonable. That graphic supported that without the sharpie graphic.

              Then the hurricane changed direction. The media threw journalistic integrity out the window and attacked President Trump for claiming that it would hit or miss Alabama.

              reddevil: On top of that, rather than issue the classic ‘what the President meant to say’ kind of statement,

              Because that wording wasn’t required. If you look at the graphic, and fair out the last positions of the hurricane, you’d see that there was, indeed, a possibility that Alabama could either be brushed or hit. The information needed was there without the graphic.

              reddevil: he has to try to convince us that a) No one knows who modified the map (which, if true, is very scary in and of itself.

              He’s not trying to convince anybody about anything regarding the sharpie. He knew, right off the bat, that the media was going to blame him for modifying the map to “revise the past” to “fit his explanation”.

              In the process of doing that, they shared the graphic that supported his earlier statement… Without the need from the sharpie’s mark.

              reddevil: If the White House Staff allowed the president to display a mysteriously marked map to the nation when lives are on the line we have a whole other set of issues), and b) that he was right all along.

              President Trump would’ve seen the mark in this scenario. This was President Trump’s doing, not his staff. This is equivalent to his marking the wrong English spelling for Al Qaeda on his notes. In both instances, something was done that resulted in the actual message being spread out.

              In this case, the graphic that supported the President’s earlier statement without the help of the sharpie.

              reddevil: Altogether amateurish and easily avoidable.

              Nope, not amateurish, but effective “PSYOP”.

          • thebesig says:

            Originally posted by Slow Joe:

            Red Devil, you mentioned sharpie-gate, which is proven fake news. This tells me all I need to know about you, and the kinds of news sources that you swallow.

            NeverTrumper Alert!!!

            For the benefit of those who don’t understand what President Trump is doing. President Trump deliberately marked that map the way he did. Why? Without that mark, the media would have no incentive to show the map that he was holding.

            This showed a graphic that contained information substantiating President Trump’s previous statement about Alabama being brushed or hit. The last hurricane plots, when faired out, would show a track that would’ve brought the hurricane close enough to Alabama to brush or hit it. You don’t need the sharpie mark to figure that out.

            The graphic shows both a cone of probability and an uncertainty area. The later is key. A good review of the graphic which shows that President Trump was justified. Without that sharpie mark, the mainstream media would not have shown that map.

            Why would they? They have propaganda to push. Usually, when they are wrong, they tend to “forget” about that one topic and move onto the next one that they could play the same game in. However, by drawing the bump, President Trump guaranteed that the mainstream media was going to spread this graphic… And let the audience see that the major media was wrong about his statements regarding the possibility of Alabama being brushed or hit.

        • thebesig says:

          Reddevil: But when he does something bad I’m going to say so,

          Correction, you going to say something about what he does that you disagree with. What you’re doing, on this thread, is confusing your disagreement with what constitutes “doing something bad”. Your disagreement with his policies does not make them “bad”.

          Reddevil: and I’ll respond to every nonsensical post that tries to pretend it didn’t happen.

          The posts that you responded to were a lot closer to reality than yours. Those that you addressed had a better understanding of what’s going on than what you had. What you’re doing is going after posts that you disagree with. Your argument is what’s nonsensical, not theirs.

          Reddevil: If you don’t like it, just turn up the volume on Fox and Friends- maybe Trump will call or tweet in.

          You assume that the others are watching Fox and Friends. This also relates to your assumption that those that you disagree with are “not” coming up with their own thoughts. Yet, a look at some of your links gives the impression that you’re doing the very thing that you imply your opposition is doing here.

    • thebesig says:

      reddevil: The president, on the other hand, can’t seem to pick a strategy, though.

      Actually, he has a strategy. You do not want others to know what their strategy is if you want to prevail. This includes not letting us know what his actual strategy is. If you, or others, cannot figure out what his strategy is, there is an excellent chance that his enemies and adversaries are not going to be able to figure it out either.

      reddevil: I have to disagree with BigSig on this one- our strategy should definitely include all four elements of national power (the Big DIME, Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economy),

      Where, in the above post, do I insist that only one approach is required? What I actually said:

      “This was bound to happen. President Trump has a different approach to dealing with other countries. The ‘weapon of choice’ is economic combined with political. John Bolton was seen as a war hawk.” — thebesig

      In this statement, I identify a “weapon of choice”. The previous sentence is a qualifier for who prefers that weapon of choice. It is President Trump’s weapon of choice. It was not me making an argument as to what that weapon of choice should be.

      reddevil: but President Trump does is not consistent in his approach. Pompeo enables this, by the way, and he would be disastrous as NSA.

      And he shouldn’t be consistent. President Trump should not be predictable when it comes to mundane decisions expected of the president. If you have a consistent approach in areas that you are suggesting, then those who oppose you can predict where you are going. If they can predict where you are going, they can plan strategies against your own plan.

      reddevil: One week he is threatening Kim Jung Un, then sending him love letter.

      For all of Km Jun Un’s actions and claims of the kind of punishment he would deliver to the United States, or his other adversaries, he knows deep down inside what we are capable of doing if we decide to do some damage to him.

      “Losing face” is much more of a big deal in Asia than it is in the West. They generally would take it much harder if they received the bad end of the deal, were perceived to have lost, or were subject to an action that would make them look bad.

      President Trump’s playing mind games with what the United States is capable of doing, and then sending the niceties, is President Trump playing on that psychology.

      reddevil: A few months later he is scheduling peace talks with the the Taliban then cancelling them abruptly.

      Those peace talks have been in the works for a long time. They had been meeting each other at locations in the Middle East. They were scheduled to have a face-to-face meeting in the US. President Trump, being a master negotiator, knew the games that “wicked” negotiators would try to play.

      He anticipates that those trying to get one up in the negotiations are going to try to play games beforehand. The terror attack that they committed rightfully called for the cancellation of the face-to-face meeting. They were trying to get an upper hand. Had the meetings taking place, they would’ve rightfully interpreted that as a sign of weakness on our part.

      They would be able to propagandize the terrorist attack as “forcing President Trump’s hand”.

      The same thing goes with the Iranians. Their talk about ramping up their nuclear program, while trying to get the Europeans to salvage the deal that President Trump left, was them trying to get an upper hand.

      In the process of doing this, he takes the argument away about how we should be “nice to these folks and how is she talk to them”. In my 16 years of debating against the left, this seems to be one of the talking points that they keep coming up with. If we would just be “nice” to them, “talk” to them and get out of the area, “things would resolve”.

      President Trump played that hand expecting the ultimate result. Result? That leftist argument is proven wrong.

      reddevil: Yes, he started the ‘trade war’ with China and cancelled trade agreements, but it was ham fisted with no apparent endgame in mind.

      No, he does have an endgame in mind. He simply is not letting us know what that end game is outside of the objectives he stated he wants to achieve. The trade agreements that he canceled happen to be the ones that were either recently agreed on or were about to be agreed on. Others, like NAFTA, were placed under review. They would still run. However, nations that wanted to remain in that arrangement would have to renegotiate one on more favorable terms for the US or risk having the one already in place being canceled.

      reddevil: I know many of you will see this as another example of what a great leader Trump is. I disagree.

      Then you will understand why I highly disagree with your argument here. This is one of many examples of why President Trump is a great leader.

      reddevil: this doesn’t speak well for the Trump administration and it makes us look weak on the world stage.

      No, it doesn’t. Getting Bolton out, given what he advocated, gives a false impression of what President Trump intends going forward. We want our adversaries to make the wrong assumptions about this. If they think that we are “weak”, then they would find out the hard way that this is not the case.

      Take the Chinese for example. We were close to a trade deal with them before they decided to, at the last minute, throw in some additional requirements. President Trump had deliberately sent false signals about elements that impact our economy here. The Chinese interpreted that as our side about to go into a “desperate” situation.

      That wasn’t the case. When the Chinese bulked on their end, at the last minute, President Trump cranked up the pressure on them economically. The Chinese cannot afford this pressure in the long run. Neither the Chinese, nor Iranians, think that we are “weak”. In fact, our sanctions against Iran are putting their pension paying accounts in the danger zone.

      reddevil: Trump picked the guy, and his views on national security were not only well known at the time but notorious.

      The same thing could be said about Mr. Mattis. However, when President Trump took office, he had certain realities to deal with. Both of these individuals were perfect fits at the time they were chosen. As things went underway, and things changed, it was going to only be a matter of time before they would eventually resign.

      reddevil: This is his third NSA and longest tenured at 500 and something days.

      Every administration has had this, and other positions, change hands during the term. Given President Trump’s track record, this was expected to happen. He was releasing and replacing people within his campaign during the presidential campaign. He is simply continuing with this practice into his presidency.

      reddevil: It makes our national decision making look weak and uncertain.

      No, it doesn’t. As with other administrations, important positions are not always filled by the same person during the entire term of the presidency. Many of these positions experienced turnover before the presidential term is over. This has been a constant not just with this president, but with previous presidents.

    • thebesig says:

      reddevil: It is hard to look resolute when you have a public spat with your hand picked advisors.

      And similar positions, working for foreign presidents, are shining examples of cooperation throughout an entire term? There is an excellent chance that what is going on within President Trump’s administration occurred during previous administrations. Likewise, the same things play out within the presidential (or counterpart) administrations overseas.

      reddevil: Oh, by the way, not only do they have a public disagreement about policy after abruptly canceling a peace summit, but they then have a girl fight over who broke up with who.

      Because the leftist media exploits this. Every time there is firing, or resignation, or fallout outside the administration, the leftist media will try to blow this up into something that is “wrong” with President Trump.

      They would amplify the excuses that the fired person would have against the President. President Trump has to fire back. He will hammer their BS.

      reddevil: My daughter handled breakups more maturely when she was 14.

      Your daughter was not an elected public figure, at 14, who could be damaged by falsehoods spread about her by her ex’s.

      reddevil: On the heels of Sharpiegate

      No, that wasn’t him trying to create an alternative reality. That was deliberately done to get the media to highlight that photo. Why? It’s blatantly obvious, on that photo, that there was a chance that Alabama could be hit. Anybody looking at that photo would see the track and, fairing out a line based on the last positions on that graph made a hit or brush with Alabama possible.

      reddevil: this make Trump look even more petty and vindictive.

      Not petty and vindictive. The vindictiveness came from those that tried to attack President Trump in the aftermath of their firing. President Trump knows that the media would give those attacks airtime. President Trump has to fire back and provide perspective on the firing or resignation that the media wouldn’t provide in their effort to be petty and vindictive.

      reddevil: [snip]

      That article’s claim, that most people thought that the Vietnam War was lost, is deceptive. We won that war militarily, and most who served on the ground in Vietnam believed so. We lost it on the streets of America and in the halls of Congress.

      reddevil: This is a bad day for America

      Nope, not a bad day for America. This is something that is not new and has occurred during previous administrations as well as this one.

      Contrary to what you are arguing on this thread, understand that President Trump IS doing the equivalent thing to playing chess… Doesn’t matter if it’s 2D or 3D, he’s doing the equivalent to playing it. This is something that I recognize from when I played chess on a regular basis.

  6. Comm Center Rat says:

    Good riddance to this chickenshit Chickenhawk.

    “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.” John Bolton, 1995

    I considered the war in AFG lost a decade ago, but I still went to see for myself that it was mostly a useless waste of blood and treasure. I don’t think we’re the “mentors” the Afghani military and police really want hanging around for another 18 years. Asymmetrical warfare will never destroy the ideology preached by the Taliban. If the nine major tribes in AFG decide they want the Taliban gone I’m sure they can find a way with some other allies to git ‘r done.

    • USMCMSgt(Ret) says:

      Precisely. Afghanis need to care more about their own future and find a way to rid themselves of the Taliban. I’m not sure what allies they have left, but they need to get it done one way or another.

    • thebesig says:

      Originally posted by Comm Center Rat:

      Asymmetrical warfare will never destroy the ideology preached by the Taliban. If the nine major tribes in AFG decide they want the Taliban gone I’m sure they can find a way with some other allies to git ‘r done.

      If the Taliban prevails in Afghanistan, they would gain a following. If these tribes didn’t want the Taliban gone before 9/11, or didn’t close ranks to prevent them from rising then prevent them from gaining power, then they’re game for getting behind the Taliban. Without the U.S. or a strong Afghan military, these tribes would once again latch onto the Taliban. What Al-Qaeda, and later ISIS, did is remind us that a process that has consistently occurred throughout history has this habit of continuing to happen.

      Meaning, regardless of how much fighting they do over there, a group is going to rise and unite the other groups. The time will come when the infighting ends and the cooperation begins. This happened with the Huns and the Mongols, it would happen with our enemies in the Middle East.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    Yeah, okay, if you will all recall the history of the US being in Afghanistan, we weren’t there until AFTER 9/11/01, because the Taliban controlled 3/4 of that country and the Afghans wanted them out. THEY let them in to push the Soviets out of that pisshole country, in a war of acquisition which literally bankrupted the Soviet Union and put it out of business, and when THAT was over, the Taliban wouldn’t leave. I did an article on this last year.

    But WE went in at the request of the Afghans to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and succeeded, and yet, once we left, they returned in the blink of an eye.

    All of that history figure into what is going on now, and dTrump does not, if I read him right, want an endless and pointless fight. It’s either kick ass and win, or pack up and go.

    If China wants to get into an endless war with the Taliban, which would not surprise me at all, let them. They are after control of the entire area generally known as Southwest Asia, and they have enough people to expend on it, so they don’t give a flying fart in space how many lives they expend on it. They only want the minerals and raw materials available in that place, and they’ll do whatever is necessary to get them. It’s callous, but it’s also pragmatic. They just don’t give a shit what it costs.

    Being a warmonger, Bolton doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Pres. Trump, and that’s the reason he’s out. If he understood dTrump, he’d still be there.

    • The Stranger says:

      With regards to China, I would agree. They would go scorched earth in a Shanghai minute. I say, let ‘em. Don’t get involved and don’t send aid to any so-called “freedom fighters”. Let them both bleed; the Chinese would make what we gave them and what the Russians gave them look like love taps. Not that they’re better militarily, they just don’t have the same perspective on collateral damages or their own casualties.

      • thebesig says:

        Originally posted by The Stranger says:

        With regards to China, I would agree. They would go scorched earth in a Shanghai minute. I say, let ’em. Don’t get involved and don’t send aid to any so-called “freedom fighters”. Let them both bleed; the Chinese would make what we gave them and what the Russians gave them look like love taps. Not that they’re better militarily, they just don’t have the same perspective on collateral damages or their own casualties.

        The Chinese wouldn’t succeed. Despite their large size, and what their government is investing in them, their military is overrated, and is mainly a continental power designed to operate in and close to China. Additionally, approximately 30% of their training time is dedicated to communism… Training style. They don’t have the kind of NCO core that we have, and their ability with regards to combined arms needs a lot of improvement.

        Here’s a video talking about a few things about the Chinese military:

    • GDContractor says:

      “Being a warmonger, Bolton doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Pres. Trump…”

      Gee. You’d think that would have come out in the job interview…or maybe during some cursory pre-employment interview. But I don’t know. I’m no business genius.

    • reddevil says:

      Three points:

      1). Why the hell did Trump hire Bolton in the first place? The guy’s stance was almost as well known as his mustache. Bolton did understand Trump. Trump didn’t understand Bolton.

      2). A coalition of mujahideen groups defeated the Soviets, not the Taliban. When the Soviets left, these groups almost immediately got into a civil war, and the Taliban exploited this opportunity to attack and take control most of the country by 2001. T’The Afghans’ never invited us in to take out the Taliban but the last viable group of warlords (the Northern Alliance) was more than happy to accept our help.

      3). China won’t get into an endless war with Afghanistan. They’ll go in with soft power under their Belt and Road initiative, improve the infrastructure, and make some money while establishing economic ties and simultaneously edging the US out of the region. Now, maybe the Taliban or other insurgent groups will want a little piece of that action, but China will probably just pay them off.

      • reddevil says:

        add:
        You are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was a foreign, Arab group founded by UBL and Zarwahiri to bring foreign fighters in to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. This is where a lot of the Arab, African, and Eastern European fighters learned their trade.

        The Taliban is a home grown movement. The Afghans didn’t ‘let them in’, the Taliban was born there.

        They were students in the Wahhabism madrassas set up in the refugee camps. They get their name from the Arab word ‘Talib’, for student (after one of Muhommeds followers). They are a Sunni Muslim fundamentalist organization, whereas most of the mujahideen, while muslim, were held together by tribal affiliation. The Taliban, being mostly orphans of the war, didn’t have the same tribal pull.

        Now, after the civil war, when the Taliban controlled most of the country, they were protective of their pals Al Qaeda, partly out of Pashtunwali (the ancient code of honor among the Pashtu), but also because their old pals Al Qaeda funded the Wahhabist Madrassas that gave them their start.

        Go read ‘Charley Wilson’s War’ or ‘The Taliban’.

        • GDContractor says:

          Coincidentally, yesterday was Massoud Day.

        • MI Ranger says:

          RedDevil,
          The Taliban are not a home grown movement. They were organized and trained by the Pakistani ISI, in order to destabilize Afghanistan in order to keep it under control or at least not beholden to any formal government.
          Yes Talib means student, and it is from the Pashtun side in the Norther Tribal areas of Pakistan where they started their movement.

          • reddevil says:

            Of course they are home grown. Yes, the ISI supported them and steered them early on, but their origins are Afghan, not, as PH implies above, foreign fighters.

            The fact that they are Afghan is sort of the point, after all. The ISI wanted an Afghan force they could manipulate, and the Afghan people (at least initially) wanted an Afghan liberator.

            • MI Ranger says:

              RedDevil,
              They are foreign fighters. THey come from the Pakistani Federated Tribal Area which is South of the Afghan border, at best they are cousins of the Pashtun Afghanis living in the South East. They do not represent the amalgamation that is Afghanistan and always has been. They are Pashtuns that want to cleanse the Dari and Hazar part of Afghanistan

              • GDContractor says:

                You know, I heard a lot from local Afghans that the Taliban were just foreigners that hijacked their country. I was at a COP on Rt Ohio a few miles from the western entrance to the Tangi Valley. I asked the guy telling me about “foreigners” if the Tangi Valley was full of Pakistanis. At that point, he shut up about foreigners.
                YMMV

              • reddevil says:

                No, they are not.

                As I’m sure you know, Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan, and the one group most commonly associated by themselves and the rest of the world as ‘Afghan’, if that is a thing.

                You seem to be conflating the Afghan Taliban with the Pakistani Taliban and/or confusing the two. They are two different groups. The group that took over most of Afghanistan in the ’90s and is causing most of the trouble there today is the Afghan Taliban, born in the FATA, created from Afghan refugees, led by Mullah Omar. They then shielded UBL, and they are the guys President Trump wanted to have peace talks with.

                http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/347009

                When we say ‘foreign fighters’ we generally refer to fighters being imported from other parts of the world- as an example, Al Qaeda was originally formed to bring Arabs to fight in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda in Iraq, now ISIS, was born to bring foreign fighters from all over the Muslim world to fight in Iraq.

                • reddevil says:

                  BY the way, back to the original point I was making to PH, the ‘Afghans’ did not ‘invite’ them in to save them from the Soviets…

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Something missed: -why- are the Taliban so successful in Afghanistan?

      Opposition to Bacha Bazi offers a clue.

      The Taliban oppose it. All other local players either practice it, or turn a blind eye.

      -that- is one hell of a recruiting tool.

      By turning a blind eye to that evil, courtesy of the “go along to get along” folks, we missed a golden opportunity to steal that point away from the opposition.

      We also have thusly chewed up and spat out good folks who rightly did oppose it.

      • GDContractor says:

        Geez. Next you’ll be advocating an end to man love Thursday. And then I suppose it will be women should not cover their faces, girls should go to school, and Elvis music. Infidel!

  8. Terry Sheehan says:

    You know, I really like Trump and I am a supporter, but…

    … it makes you wonder with all the firings that Trump does make himself the only consistent, persistent person in a sea of chaos. Perhaps that’s a strategy he learned a long time ago.

    It’s not The Apprentice. There is something to be said for consistency.

    That said, Bolton’s hard-line on a lot of things did give me pause.

    I was really sorry to see Mattis go.

  9. Helpful Medal says:

    “Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on the promise to get the U.S. out of conflicts”

    Yea, anyone with a brain knew that was bullshit. Speaking of which, what’s with all these dumbasses claiming to be anti-war and voting Republican? If I wanted an end to the wars I’d vote for Barney Sandals or some dumb shit. I vote Republican because I fucking love war and I hope we stay at war forever.

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      Don’t go away mad, just go away.

    • Deckie says:

      Coming from someone who has never been to war, I’m betting.

      • Helpful Medal says:

        I’m actually posting from Iraq right now.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          You sound like some 5’3″ 290 pound troll posting from his Momma’s basement while wearing spandex, the type who reads “Soldier of Fortune” off the rack in a 7-11 with a scowl on your face thinking it makes you look like an intimidating badass.

          • Helpful Medal says:

            Dude, have you SEEN the shit besig posts? He’s posted fucking Pepe memes on here, for fuck’s sake.

            Speaking of which, I’ve seen pics of you in your mandals and jean shorts from back in the days when you were first posting here, and I wouldn’t be so quick to call someone else short.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              You’ve already proven yourself to be a babbling idiot.

            • thebesig says:

              Helpful Medal: Dude, have you SEEN the shit besig posts?

              First, the only person that posts s(beep) between the two of us, is you. Don’t mistake posts, that you disagree with, or that destroy your narratives, as “crap”.

              Second, you did nothing to counter API’s guess as to your apparent physical characteristics. Instead, you appeared to have played the deflection game. You come across like this: “I may have eaten a gallon of ice cream, but did you see how Jimmy ate a whole pie?” While leaving out the fact that the pie was hand size.

              Helpful Medal: He’s posted fucking Pepe memes on here, for fuck’s sake.

              That meme was relevant to the theme of the post, and had more to do with the topic then what your posts are doing on this thread.

              Helpful Medal: Speaking of which, I’ve seen pics of you in your mandals and jean shorts from back in the days when you were first posting here, and I wouldn’t be so quick to call someone else short.

              Again, you have not debunked the description that he sees of you. At this point, people might assume that his description of you is very close to reality. Even if API fit the description that you’re giving him here, that appearance would have more credibility than your posts on this thread.

        • Deckie says:

          Sure you are…

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            I’m sure he’ll be checked out on that and he’ll be called out on it the moment a Moderator has proof that he’s full of shit!

            • Helpful Medal says:

              They already know I’m here, just like Jonn knew when I was posting from Kuwait, and from Afghanistan. I’ve been here longer than you.

              • Deckie says:

                And yet, trolling never gets old for you.

                • Helpful Medal says:

                  Trolling = pointing out our hypocrisy. One of the reasons I like posting here is because the double standards never get old. You guys dedicated a post and 200 comments when Obama saluted a service member while holding a cup of coffee in his hand. When Trump saluted a North Korean General, you know how many posts you guys had about it? Take a guess.

                  • MI Ranger says:

                    I would say you probably never had the brief on what a salute is, and what it means!
                    A Salute is a form of greeting among honorable opponents. Originated in medieval times as the raising of ones visor to show your respect to your opponent, and you came openly with arms to compete fairly.
                    Later it was used as a sign of respect from subordinates to leaders, and returned by the leader to the subordinate to show they will honor their service.
                    In your first example it was a sign of disrespect to be holding a coffee cup, similar to not saluting at all and walking.
                    In your second example it was as a sign of respect that we would fight honorably.
                    By the way, the bagels were stale in the DFAC yesterday… can you get that fixed HELPFUL MEDAL?

                  • Deckie says:

                    That you really cannot tell the difference between your two examples doesn’t say much for you…

                  • thebesig says:

                    Helpful Medal: Trolling = pointing out our hypocrisy.

                    That’s not what you’re doing. What you’re doing is pounding BS into the table to make up for the fact that there’s not that much validity to your claims.

                    Helpful Medal: One of the reasons I like posting here is because the double standards never get old.

                    No. The reason that you post here is that you think that you could hammer people. As evident by the time I came here and saw just how this thread blew up, you tend to run for the hills when you lose a sense of control.

                    Helpful Medal: You guys dedicated a post and 200 comments when Obama saluted a service member while holding a cup of coffee in his hand. When Trump saluted a North Korean General, you know how many posts you guys had about it? Take a guess.

                    There is a difference. You, being in the military, should know that you carry things in your left hand. This requirement is practical. One of the reasons for this is that you could render a salute with the free hand… which is the right hand.

                    On the North Korean General’s part, he rendered the salute, President Trump returned it. In the setting that President Trump was in, and with what he was intending to do, it was the proper thing to do at the time.

              • thebesig says:

                Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

                They already know I’m here, just like Jonn knew when I was posting from Kuwait, and from Afghanistan. I’ve been here longer than you.

                Actually, we know that you’re in the United States, not overseas. But, the fact that you’d make a claim here that’s not consistent with reality doesn’t surprise me. It doesn’t surprise the others that contribute blog articles here either.

                If you’re going to BS about being in Iraq, what makes you think that anything else that you’re saying here is right? We both know that you’re full of it.

        • thebesig says:

          Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

          I’m actually posting from Iraq right now.

          Balony! The others here are correct with regards to doubting your claims of being in Iraq. You’re not in Iraq, you’re posting from the United States. Don’t mistake your playing Call of Duty – at, or not far from, an American desert – as you being deployed to Iraq.

          I’ll be back later to address the rest of the garbage that you posted. Put the bong down before you post and maybe, just maybe, the others here wouldn’t be shoving your a(beep) down your throat multiple times. Congratulations, the others here have turned you into an ass connoisseur. You could add that as a hobby, in addition to your hitting the bong before posting here.

    • D. B. Cooper says:

      Just think how happy everyone would be if you were to disappear like me.

      • Helpful Medal says:

        I believe D.B. Cooper is still alive more than I believe anyone could be stupid enough to be anti-war and still vote Republican.

        Between Trump walking back his promise to leave Syria and calling off meetings with the Taliban, I couldn’t be happier.

        • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

          You sound like the type who spends hours blabbing about how the Lunar Landings were faked and “Pro Wrestling” is for real.

        • Deckie says:

          Just because your Call of Duty level takes place in Iraq doesn’t mean you’re actually there…

          • Helpful Medal says:

            Yes, I’m actually here. In fact, I pretty much only post on TAH when I’m deployed because it’s one of the few fun websites left that isn’t blocked on the domain here. I remember we used to have a lot of people posting here from deployed areas, like that Warrant pilot from Afghanistan, but it seems most of them left.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              You sounds like a VERY thin-skinned little wannabe. If you are truly deployed, my bet is that you’re on you’re first tour with a rear-echelon MOS.

              • Helpful Medal says:

                You? Calling people thin-skinned? That’s a hoot. You’ve been bitching and whining on this site for over eight years. You post so goddamn much that it’s pretty easy to figure out that you, much like Mary, who lives in a fucking trailer park full of cats and is a fuck fatass, are nothing more than a loud little manlet and all of your insults are just projections of your own insecurities.

                This isn’t my first deployment, it’s my 10th. And I’m not rear echelon, I’m part of the forward deployed group.

                • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                  LMAO, I truly think that you’re more full of shit with each of your posts. Keep the laughs coming Troll-thing, I got a GOOD laugh out of that!!! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to my life, so you’ll have to settle for reading the latest copy of “Soldier of Fortune” at your local 7-11 or book store thinking it makes you look like the badass that you aren’t, later!

                • thebesig says:

                  Helpful Medal: You? Calling people thin-skinned? That’s a hoot.

                  I’m reading your back and forth. I don’t see him as being thin skinned. Look at his description of you. Your reaction is what I would expect from someone who is thin skinned. You had to react so fast that you forgot to address how he described you… Unless his description of you is accurate.

                  Helpful Medal: You’ve been bitching and whining on this site for over eight years.

                  From seeing both your posts, I would say that API has provided relevant posts to this site. You? It’s like you’re hitting the bong pretty heavy before posting here. Your posts, on this thread and elsewhere, make you come across as bitching and whining. Heck, you did that with your opinions about the “double standards” that you claim exists.

                  Helpful Medal: You post so goddamn much that it’s pretty easy to figure out that you, much like Mary, who lives in a fucking trailer park full of cats and is a fuck fatass, are nothing more than a loud little manlet and all of your insults are just projections of your own insecurities. [PROJECTING YOUR TRAITS]

                  No, you haven’t figured anybody out here. The only thing that you did was to project your own traits to API and to another. I wouldn’t be surprised if your only friends were video game systems and computers. You probably get a power rush when they do what you expect them to do.

                  The only group of people that I know of, who use the term “manlet”, are Incels. I would not be surprised if someone were to say that you were one of those folks. Your attitude would make a strong argument for that.

                  Helpful Medal: This isn’t my first deployment,

                  I’m going to assume that you’ve been on deployment before, so had you been deployed today, this wouldn’t be your first deployment.

                  Helpful Medal: it’s my 10th.

                  Tenth upgrade to your game system to feed your video game addiction playing games like Call of Duty?

                  Helpful Medal: And I’m not rear echelon, I’m part of the forward deployed group.

                  Baloney. If you’re in a deployed status, you would be “in the rear”. You’d be deployed at a U.S. location. Not only are you in the rear, but you took it in the rear before I saw your first post here. The others on this thread anallated you. Might as well, as you come across as an a(beep) on this site.

              • thebesig says:

                Originally posted by A Proud Infidel®™

                You sounds like a VERY thin-skinned little wannabe. If you are truly deployed, my bet is that you’re on you’re first tour with a rear-echelon MOS.

                This is a very good possibility. Based on what I saw, he would have an MOS that would put him in high-speed rear echelon areas. He would either be in the military or he would be a civilian government employee. Good indications that he is deployed against a stateside position.

            • thebesig says:

              Helpful Medal: Yes, I’m actually here.

              If by “here”, you mean posting on this site, yes, you’re here. If by “here”, you mean, “Iraq”, then no, you’re not over there. “Iraq” is not how you spell “The United States”.

              Helpful Medal: In fact, I pretty much only post on TAH when I’m deployed

              Your track record, of generating posts here, go back to December 2014. This is just one of the many usernames that you’ve used. Do you want me to list all the other usernames that you’ve used here?

              Helpful Medal: because it’s one of the few fun websites left that isn’t blocked on the domain here.

              If you consider getting your a(beep) handed to you as fun, more power to you.

              Helpful Medal: I remember we used to have a lot of people posting here from deployed areas, like that Warrant pilot from Afghanistan,

              At the moment, you don’t appear to be one of those that are posting from deployed areas… Unless you’re deployed to a position in the U.S., then you could use that angle as “posting from deployed areas”.

              Helpful Medal: but it seems most of them left.

              Not just those that posted from deployed areas, but those who posted from within the US and elsewhere. I’ve been posting here since 2012/2013. There were a lot more people posting here back then. But people move on and do other things. It’s the nature of the beast, this happens to other message boards and forums.

        • OWB says:

          Reality check:

          Most sane folks ARE anti-war. Sane folks understand that being prepared to fight a war, should it become necessary, is the best possible way to avoid war. But, when somebody else decides that war will happen, reducing the number of casualties by mounting an effective counter attack is the only sensible response.

          But you already knew that.

          • Helpful Medal says:

            The only reason the United States exists is because of war. War got us the 13 colonies, war got us the Louisiana Purchase, war got us the Mexican territories, war got us Puerto Rico (well, not all of them were great).

            War is still the most effective way to take what you want. When Trump said we’d take the oil from Iraq I was ecstatic. Why the fuck don’t we take their oil? Why don’t we take the whole region and turn it into the 51st state?

            Russia is doing exactly this and no one is stopping them.

            • 26Limabeans says:

              Perhaps you should join the Russian Army.

              • Helpful Medal says:

                See, that’s what I like about you guys: no rebuttal and just name calling, whattaboutism and re-direction.

                Lot less anti-war pussies in Russia. An overwhelming majority of Russians support the war in Crimea.

                • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                  Ooh, you ARE a thin-skinned little wannabe!

                • ArmyATC says:

                  I’m sure the irony escapes you. Now what’s the definition of hypocrisy?

                  • Helpful Medal says:

                    The definition of hypocrisy is being an anti-war hippie faggot and calling yourself a Republican. But I’ll bet that most of you dumbasses go around telling everyone that you’re a Libertarian like Jonn did, as if that’s any better.

                    • ArmyATC says:

                      Yeah, the point flew right over your head.

                    • thebesig says:

                      Helpful Medal: The definition of hypocrisy is being an anti-war hippie faggot and calling yourself a Republican.

                      A reading of the description that you made here, about Republicans and what they would want, argues against the idea of you being a Republican. No Republican wants to go to war just to acquire territory. This is what you’re implying.

                      Helpful Medal: But I’ll bet that most of you dumbasses go around telling everyone that you’re a Libertarian like Jonn did, as if that’s any better.

                      Many libertarians vote Republican, and argue conservative positions. Your description above would actually describe them as libertarians, like Jonn was.

                • thebesig says:

                  Helpful Medal: See, that’s what I like about you guys: no rebuttal and just name calling, whattaboutism and re-direction.

                  That went right over your head. You praised the Russians for what you think they are doing. You talked about hoping that we’re at war forever. So, suggesting that you join the Russian Army was a perfect rebuttal. That wasn’t “whattaboutism”, that wasn’t “re-direction”, that was hitting you straight in the jugular.

                  Helpful Medal: Lot less anti-war pussies in Russia. An overwhelming majority of Russians support the war in Crimea.

                  Hence, the statement: “Perhaps you should join the Russian Army.” If you like the idea of being at war forever, and if what you say is true but what you really think, then you just might get your wish if you joined their Army.

                  This is sarcasm. You, employing sarcasm in your posts, should’ve seen it coming back at you.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              I and other TAH Regulars®™ think you’re full of shit, but time will tell. IF YOU ARE deployed I think you sound like a Supply or PAC Clerk with delusions of grandeur.

              • Helpful Medal says:

                Says the fucking E-5 that did a tour in Kuwait? LOL, tell me more, Mr. Fobbit.

                • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                  Says you, o little wannabe, I’ve done no less than three Overseas Tours.

                  You lose, just stay in your Momma’s basement and sulk.

                  • Helpful Medal says:

                    “Overseas tours”

                    Soooooo….. not deployments, then? Gotcha. How was the Starbucks at Doha, POG?

                    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                      Nope, two Deployments and a tour next to the Korean DMZ in the early 90’s, you lose yet again, little troll!

                    • thebesig says:

                      Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

                      “Overseas tours”

                      Soooooo….. not deployments, then? Gotcha. How was the Starbucks at Doha, POG?

                      Your attitude here suggests that you were someone that was positioned in a FOB, and not with someone that would cross the wire. Or, you could’ve been positioned stateside as the Rear Detachment Commander. I would say that you’re familiar with how Green Bean was.

                • thebesig says:

                  Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

                  Says the fucking E-5 that did a tour in Kuwait? LOL, tell me more, Mr. Fobbit.

                  Says the guy that’s posting from the United States. You previously identified yourself here as “cptsmith” and “Charlie Six” among others. This attitude suggests that you think that you’re superior to him… If you were indeed an officer. If you were an officer, I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept you in Rear Detachment… And if you were deployed, I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept you on the FOB. Your attitude, displayed in your posts, would suggest such.

                  But hey, you enjoyed Baskin-Robbins, Green Beans, etc., didn’t you?

            • ArmyATC says:

              “war got us the Louisiana Purchase”

              *snicker*

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                An entertaining little idiot, isn’t he/she/it?

              • Helpful Medal says:

                Yea, shithead. Because we kicked their asses back to France so they couldn’t settle there. They sold it to us rather than us just seizing it by force later. Smart move on their part.

                • ArmyATC says:

                  That’s not how it happened, but whatever.

                • thebesig says:

                  Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

                  Yea, shithead. Because we kicked their asses back to France so they couldn’t settle there. They sold it to us rather than us just seizing it by force later. Smart move on their part.

                  False. Although the French were defeated and had to give up much of their territory to Great Britain, many French settlers were allowed to stay. Many relocated to other parts of what was now former French territory. They were allowed to stay; however.

                  They didn’t sell it to us to avoid having to fight a war with us. They sold it in anticipation of them going to war with Great Britain.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              The Louisiana Purchase cost the USA $15,000,000, and gave this country enough land for 13 additional states.
              It was NOT obtained through warfare.

              Keep this up, and you’ll be in moderation. Pick your fights some place else.

              • Helpful Medal says:

                “Pick your fights some place else.”

                What, that trailer in Chicago isn’t enough of a safe space for you?

                • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                  You sound like a member of the Dutch Rudder Gang.

                • AW1Ed says:

                  Helpful Medal, Congrats! You have been selected for special moderation, a self-inflicted condition that means I’ll nuke your comments. The best way out of this condition is an apology, and ceasing to make disparaging comments, insulting our fellow TAH’ers. I realize an apology isn’t coming, but the second part stands one way or the other.
                  Have a TAH day.

                  • Mick says:

                    KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

                    Shack!

                    BDA = 100/100

                    Cleared to RTB to Mother for rearm and refuel.

                    Expect Signal Charlie upon arrival.

                • thebesig says:

                  Originally posted by Helpful Medal:

                  “Pick your fights some place else.”

                  What, that trailer in Chicago isn’t enough of a safe space for you?

                  Let me simplify this for you. Had you done this on a message board, you would’ve been warned, then temporarily banned. Or, you would’ve straight up been banned. The attitude that you displayed here is the same attitude that would have caused you to get the ban hammer elsewhere.

                  I remember you saying that you were “banned” from the site. If that were the case, then it does not appear that you learned your lesson. Doing the exact same thing that would earn you a ban.

                  Is the list that I have, of your previous usernames, an indication of your failure to learn your lesson?

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                I’m surprised he hasn’t already been moderated, but he/she/it that goes by the moniker “Helpful Medal” has just recently gone over the edge with claims that he/she/it is posting from the Middle East. The troll has been briefly entertaining for the time being, but I’m sure that it will soon start boring me and others.

            • thebesig says:

              Helpful Medal: The only reason the United States exists is because of war.

              War did facilitate our coming to be. However, even before the American Revolution, there was a movement advocating administering all the colonial provinces from one central area. The American Revolution accelerated this process. However, had the American Revolution not happened, we would’ve headed down a similar path that Canada took.

              Helpful Medal: War got us the 13 colonies,

              There were actually more than 13 British Colonial provinces. The first colonies were started by via colonial charters. The English didn’t fight anybody to start colonizing the East Coast.

              Helpful Medal: war got us the Louisiana Purchase,

              No. That was obtained via purchase from France. They saw war with Great Britain as a reality, so they sold that territory to the U.S.

              Helpful Medal: war got us the Mexican territories, war got us Puerto Rico (well, not all of them were great).

              Correct.

              Helpful Medal: War is still the most effective way to take what you want.

              Not necessarily. The Germans wanted to expand their control back in the 20th Century. They took territories, but they lost them. Result? They didn’t have what they wanted to take in the first place. In this case, it was inefficient.

              Helpful Medal: When Trump said we’d take the oil from Iraq I was ecstatic. Why the fuck don’t we take their oil?

              Because the bulk of the oil that we import comes from the western hemisphere. It’s much more efficient to pipe that oil in than to ship it in. If this were about oil, then we would’ve invaded Venezuela in 2003, not Iraq.

              Helpful Medal: Why don’t we take the whole region and turn it into the 51st state?

              Because conquests, for the purposes of expanding your own territory, was a form of “corporate acquisition” during a period when agriculture and agriculturally based industries were the norm. During this period, the land was the means of production. Those that owned the means of production had both power and wealth. Increasing that land increases both.

              Today, there is a different means of production that doesn’t require more land than what we already possess. Acquiring more territory comes in the form of businesses buying other businesses, companies buying more companies, etc.

              Helpful Medal: Russia is doing exactly this and no one is stopping them.

              Is Russia planning to conquer the Middle East in order to make it a part of Russia? YES [ ] NO [ ]

              Copy and paste this question, including the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the option that represents your reply. Spare me any additional comments that you’d want to add to your answer.

        • GDContractor says:

          Hussar! Wazzup?

        • USMC Steve says:

          I hate to tell ya dude, but most of our costliest wars were started by socialist dems. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, to name a few.

    • NHSparky says:

      Go suck start a shotgun, boy.

    • thebesig says:

      Helpful Medal: Yea, anyone with a brain knew that was bullshit.

      Everybody knew that he was doing what any other person was doing that campaigned for the office. His taking General Mattis on board was a part of that plan. He didn’t intend to get us out without winning first. He criticized the last president for doing that. He argued that it was a bad idea to pull out before conditions dictated it.

      Helpful Medal: Speaking of which, what’s with all these dumbasses claiming to be anti-war and voting Republican?

      Not everybody in the Republican Party wants to go to war. Additionally, Republicans that do support war would do so if it is justified. Also, there are those in the Democrat side of the house who would support war if it is justified.

      Helpful Medal: If I wanted an end to the wars I’d vote for Barney Sandals or some dumb shit.

      Theoretically, if Bernie Sanders were to become the next president, we would not see the end of these wars. He would come slightly towards the center if he were the nominee. Even President Obama campaigned on getting us out of these wars. Look at how that worked out.

  10. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    I didn’t understand why Bolton was ever hired in the first place, it’s not like he’s subtle at all about what he believes.

    Neocon chickenhawk, and the kind of guy who will leak information to promote his own personal views at the expense of anyone else including his boss and his own party….so fuck that guy and good riddance.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Well, he was the US ambassador to the UN a while back. That, and the avuncular mustached look make him seem less annoying than he really is.
      Maybe it’s time we kicked the UN out of New York City. All it does is drain tax money that could go to more important things in this country, things like road and dam repair and construction, passenger rail expansion, more job training in tech and engineering – stuff like that.

  11. rgr769 says:

    I think Bolton was a good pick for the job, especially after McMaster turned out to be a swamp critter. But once Trump decided Bolton was undermining his decisions, he had to go.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Trump is consistent. Some folks just expect to see something else, and are confused.

      That is kinda how camouflage works, and I am amazed at how many folks miss that.

      Trump is not a politician. Expecting him to be one, or act like one, is … not wise.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        He does point to something I did not see
        beforehand in each of the people dismissed.
        Common enough that I now look for it.
        I like Bolton as an ambassador and UN
        antagonist but not as NSA under Trump.