Trump getting Americans out of NKorea

[elysiantraveller]

Time to turn some of that "goodwill" capital into leverage...

He's pretty shrewd honestly.

NK suspending talks with the south and Summit on hold or joint exercise.

[elysiantraveller]

Token nice guy gesture or a sign of things to come...?

US B-52 bombers changed flight plan after North Korea threatened Trump summit

Probably very interesting positioning going on in the administration right now. With John "Bomb Everything" Bolton and Pompeo on one side and win-seekers in Trump, Kelly, and Mattis on the other.

[fast4522]

That is for show only, they go psycho and then become the guinea pig that floors everyone. Everyone should just relax, old technology is for show only. These people are so interested in wheel reinvention they do not understand 2018 has rolled over them big time.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Token nice guy gesture or a sign of things to come...?

US B-52 bombers changed flight plan after North Korea threatened Trump summit

Probably very interesting positioning going on in the administration right now. With John "Bomb Everything" Bolton and Pompeo on one side and win-seekers in Trump, Kelly, and Mattis on the other.

Sounds like a good mix to me.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Sounds like a good mix to me.

I'm sure it's interesting.

I do wish they had a older policy wonk type in the meetings... Bolton fits the bill but he's a neoconservative.

Still would like to be a fly on the wall in there.

[woodtoo]

Older "policy wonks" have got them nowhere. Let Trump be Trump.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Token nice guy gesture or a sign of things to come...?

US B-52 bombers changed flight plan after North Korea threatened Trump summit

Probably very interesting positioning going on in the administration right now. With John "Bomb Everything" Bolton and Pompeo on one side and win-seekers in Trump, Kelly, and Mattis on the other.

Of all the names you mentioned the ones who lack any winning history are Kelly and Mathis.

The rest are proven successes, regardless of the bitter chatter and deranged biases of their enemies.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

Of all the names you mentioned the ones who lack any winning history are Kelly and Mathis.

The rest are proven successes, regardless of the bitter chatter and deranged biases of their enemies.

You would consider Iraq a history of winning?

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You would consider Iraq a history of winning?

Mattis was the general of the 1st Marine Division during the Iraq war.

Mattis is not a winner as I have been saying for over a year.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

Mattis was the general of the 1st Marine Division during the Iraq war.

Mattis is not a winner as I have been saying for over a year.

You are aware of the role 1st Marine played right?

Soldiers go where they are told to go. Mattis did it faster than anybody.

You sure bag on a lot of Trumps appointees... how can such a bright guy keep picking the wrong people?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You are aware of the role 1st Marine played right?

Soldiers go where they are told to go. Mattis did it faster than anybody.

Mattis told Rumsfeld early on that invading Iraq would be a strategic mistake. Mattis did what he was told, and his assignment turned out to be a strategic mistake. So doing his job and failing to win an unwinnable war makes him a loser?

[reckless]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You are aware of the role 1st Marine played right?

Soldiers go where they are told to go. Mattis did it faster than anybody.

You sure bag on a lot of Trumps appointees... how can such a bright guy keep picking the wrong people?

Ahh, so you think Trump is not bright too? Really, you are the last guy on earth to criticise anyone, especially Trump, for having a lack of brains.

So to you, all these accomplishments in his brief time is nothing... or didn't happen??

Simply, he keeps picking people that he eventually fires because ... (1) he isn't of the establishment political class, which includes the military. I always questioned his love for The Generals, whom I reminded everyone a year ago how horrible they were. (2) he ran against the establishment but you need establishment types in your Administration.

In case you forgot, or ignored, he got rid of many that openly proved to be incompetent or not a supporter, such as Gary Cohen and Tillerson, Priebus, and a host of others.

I can't wait until he rids the country of people like Jeff Sessions, Kelly and his blond girlfriend, and many others.

The failures of Cohen, Tillerson, Priebus and Sessions are a reflection on them, not Trump.

But, even if you don't believe me, so what... your musings are insignificant in all matters Trump, politics, economics.

I guess it's OK with you that the DoJ, FBI, CIA, Mueller, have acted in a criminal manner against Trump. Tell us what you think about that and their attempt for coup d'etat?

[reckless]

I am the one that has consistently asked this question: what wars have our generals won since WW II??

Rumsfeld deserves his share of the blame of course.

But what about the Democrats' favorite Republican, Colin Powell? We were all set to go to Bagdad in the First Gulf War and Powell was the man responsible for convincing Pappy Bush not to invade. Thanks to him, Saddam Hussein survived.

So we can make or break all our politicians and generals whenever it's convenient.

Back to Mattis... we don't need a weak man heading this country's armed forces. Not someone who prefers to be a social engineer rather than a fighter and leader.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Mattis told Rumsfeld early on that invading Iraq would be a strategic mistake. Mattis did what he was told, and his assignment turned out to be a strategic mistake. So doing his job and failing to win an unwinnable war makes him a loser?

Kept his full division in the field through a 500 mile 7 day advance...

Anything but a loser.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by reckless

But what about the Democrats' favorite Republican, Colin Powell? We were all set to go to Bagdad in the First Gulf War and Powell was the man responsible for convincing Pappy Bush not to invade. Thanks to him, Saddam Hussein survived.

I'm sure Powell had reasons for advising against taking down Saddam, but he was hardly the only one in the administration.

It was quite clear at the time that our Arab allies in the region had no desire or goal to do anything other than liberate Kuwait. It was feared that we would be largely on our own. The lack of Arabs allies would make us look like the Crusaders.

Also, many in the administration were convinced that taking out Saddam without a replacement government ready to take control would result in sectarian violence. What a wild and crazy thought!