Tucker Carlson: US Out of Iraq for Good!

[iceberg]

You accused me of not responding to posts, and now you are refusing to answer fair questions. Are you that hypocritical and/or chikin-shit?
LAST FUCKING TIME I'M POSTING THESE:
1. Stop tap-dancing and running away from answering the simple Y/N question. No more stupid "Taliban" dodges or you lose the debate.
Are you okay with terrorist groups having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?

2. Please provide credible links to prove your assertion about the US arming ISIS, otherwise I call bullshit, and you lose.

3. There are thousands of ISIS fighters in prisons that are from 50 countries. ISIS is an international Caliphate of Islamic extremists, not country based "freedom fighters" repelling invaders, thanks for playing.
Nobody Has a Plan for ISIS Fighters Detained by Kurds in Syria
There Is No Plan B for ISIS Prisoners

Sorry, I have answered your terrorist question. We call Iran a terrorist nation. I have no problem with them being nuclear. It will keep our psychotic war mongers at bay.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne

The people in ISIS are the same people that we have invaded and killed their friends, wives and children.

really? when does our leadership scream DEATH TO ALL and say as soon as they can, they will wipe their enemies off the face of the earth?

We are saying that every time we threaten them.

please show me a video of trump, obama, bush, clinton - any of our leaders - advocating DEATH TO THE INFIDELS.

You sound like a 7 year old......"they are calling me names". No one has threatened us more than N. Korea. So what?

hidden implications you're choosing to find and assign to doesn't count. i can find where they've said they will - for example - blow up israel as soon as they can.

so when you can show me our leadership saying as soon as they can, they're making iraq a glass parking lot - you have a comparison. if you can't do that, you're stretching things for your own views.

I'm good with them threatening them with words. It's the bombs I have a problem with.

So you can't do it.

Got it.

 

[kyzr]

1. Stop running away from answering the simple Y/N question.
Are you okay with terrorist groups having nuclear weapons, Y/N?
I Need to know who you are defining as terrorists.
Any of these terrorists for example: Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia

2. Please provide credible links to prove your assertion about arming ISIS. We trained OBL to fight in AFG against the Russians as freedom fighters, not as terrorists. True the CIA helped Saddam get chemical weapons in the war with Iran to maintain equilibrium. The CIA apparently didn't want either side to win.
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

3. What countries are ISIS and AQ defending?

Your link lists the Taliban as a terrorist organization. You can like it or not they were the government of Afghanistan. That's the problem. Any group we dislike we label as terrorists. The Taliban was condemned for destroying cultural sites but Trump threatened the same thing. Why shouldnt Iran consider us a terrorist nation?

No you can't consider a group "freedom fighters" when out side and terrorists when they are not. They are doing the same thing I each case, the target just changes.

ISIS is nothing more than the people of the countries we are invading. ISIS is something we created. They aren't going to name themselves something not even understood in their language.

You accused me of not responding to posts, and now you are refusing to answer fair questions. Are you that hypocritical and/or chikin-shit?
LAST FUCKING TIME I'M POSTING THESE:
1. Stop tap-dancing and running away from answering the simple Y/N question. No more stupid "Taliban" dodges or you lose the debate.
Are you okay with terrorist groups having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?

2. Please provide credible links to prove your assertion about the US arming ISIS, otherwise I call bullshit, and you lose.

3. There are thousands of ISIS fighters in prisons that are from 50 countries. ISIS is an international Caliphate of Islamic extremists, not country based "freedom fighters" repelling invaders, thanks for playing.
Nobody Has a Plan for ISIS Fighters Detained by Kurds in Syria
There Is No Plan B for ISIS Prisoners

Sorry, I have answered your terrorist question. We call Iran a terrorist nation. I have no problem with them being nuclear. It will keep our psychotic war mongers at bay.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne

The people in ISIS are the same people that we have invaded and killed their friends, wives and children.

1. You chikin-shit, refuse to answer the simple "terrorist group" question with a YES or a NO, so thanks for playing. We're done.

2. Copied from your link. Says that the BRITISH, not the US, armed ISIS to oppose Assad. Lying chikin-shit.
"On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition."

3. Lying again, ISIS has NOTHING to do with repelling "invaders" Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
"ISIS is a terrorist militant group and a former unrecognised proto-state[88] that follows a fundamentalist, Salafi jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam.[89][90] ISIL gained global prominence in early 2014 when it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive,[91] followed by its capture of Mosul[92] and the Sinjar massacre.[93]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

 

[pknopp]

Your link lists the Taliban as a terrorist organization. You can like it or not they were the government of Afghanistan. That's the problem. Any group we dislike we label as terrorists. The Taliban was condemned for destroying cultural sites but Trump threatened the same thing. Why shouldnt Iran consider us a terrorist nation?

No you can't consider a group "freedom fighters" when out side and terrorists when they are not. They are doing the same thing I each case, the target just changes.

ISIS is nothing more than the people of the countries we are invading. ISIS is something we created. They aren't going to name themselves something not even understood in their language.

You accused me of not responding to posts, and now you are refusing to answer fair questions. Are you that hypocritical and/or chikin-shit?
LAST FUCKING TIME I'M POSTING THESE:
1. Stop tap-dancing and running away from answering the simple Y/N question. No more stupid "Taliban" dodges or you lose the debate.
Are you okay with terrorist groups having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?

2. Please provide credible links to prove your assertion about the US arming ISIS, otherwise I call bullshit, and you lose.

3. There are thousands of ISIS fighters in prisons that are from 50 countries. ISIS is an international Caliphate of Islamic extremists, not country based "freedom fighters" repelling invaders, thanks for playing.
Nobody Has a Plan for ISIS Fighters Detained by Kurds in Syria
There Is No Plan B for ISIS Prisoners

Sorry, I have answered your terrorist question. We call Iran a terrorist nation. I have no problem with them being nuclear. It will keep our psychotic war mongers at bay.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne

The people in ISIS are the same people that we have invaded and killed their friends, wives and children.

1. You chikin-shit, refuse to answer the simple "terrorist group" question with a YES or a NO, so thanks for playing. We're done.

2. Copied from your link. Says that the BRITISH, not the US, armed ISIS to oppose Assad. Lying chikin-shit.
"On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition."

3. Lying again, ISIS has NOTHING to do with repelling "invaders" Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
"ISIS is a terrorist militant group and a former unrecognised proto-state[88] that follows a fundamentalist, Salafi jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam.[89][90] ISIL gained global prominence in early 2014 when it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive,[91] followed by its capture of Mosul[92] and the Sinjar massacre.[93]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

 

[kyzr]

You accused me of not responding to posts, and now you are refusing to answer fair questions. Are you that hypocritical and/or chikin-shit?
LAST FUCKING TIME I'M POSTING THESE:
1. Stop tap-dancing and running away from answering the simple Y/N question. No more stupid "Taliban" dodges or you lose the debate.
Are you okay with terrorist groups having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?

2. Please provide credible links to prove your assertion about the US arming ISIS, otherwise I call bullshit, and you lose.

3. There are thousands of ISIS fighters in prisons that are from 50 countries. ISIS is an international Caliphate of Islamic extremists, not country based "freedom fighters" repelling invaders, thanks for playing.
Nobody Has a Plan for ISIS Fighters Detained by Kurds in Syria
There Is No Plan B for ISIS Prisoners

Sorry, I have answered your terrorist question. We call Iran a terrorist nation. I have no problem with them being nuclear. It will keep our psychotic war mongers at bay.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne

The people in ISIS are the same people that we have invaded and killed their friends, wives and children.

1. You chikin-shit, refuse to answer the simple "terrorist group" question with a YES or a NO, so thanks for playing. We're done.

2. Copied from your link. Says that the BRITISH, not the US, armed ISIS to oppose Assad. Lying chikin-shit.
"On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition."

3. Lying again, ISIS has NOTHING to do with repelling "invaders" Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
"ISIS is a terrorist militant group and a former unrecognised proto-state[88] that follows a fundamentalist, Salafi jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam.[89][90] ISIL gained global prominence in early 2014 when it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive,[91] followed by its capture of Mosul[92] and the Sinjar massacre.[93]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

 

[pknopp]

Sorry, I have answered your terrorist question. We call Iran a terrorist nation. I have no problem with them being nuclear. It will keep our psychotic war mongers at bay.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq | Seumas Milne

The people in ISIS are the same people that we have invaded and killed their friends, wives and children.

1. You chikin-shit, refuse to answer the simple "terrorist group" question with a YES or a NO, so thanks for playing. We're done.

2. Copied from your link. Says that the BRITISH, not the US, armed ISIS to oppose Assad. Lying chikin-shit.
"On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition."

3. Lying again, ISIS has NOTHING to do with repelling "invaders" Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
"ISIS is a terrorist militant group and a former unrecognised proto-state[88] that follows a fundamentalist, Salafi jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam.[89][90] ISIL gained global prominence in early 2014 when it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive,[91] followed by its capture of Mosul[92] and the Sinjar massacre.[93]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

 

[Dragonlady]

That speech Trump made yesterday should be enough to convince anyone that he is dangerously incompetent as commander in chief. We should all be questioning his ability to handle threats in a tactically responsible way.

Dumbass. That is your biggest problem you are nothing but a dumbass!

Do you actually think Trump has been a steady deliberative Commander in Chief? Shit, he shows his incompetence every time he makes a move. He probably could not even play a decent game of Risk. Trump is a tactical retard, the events of the last few days speak volumes about his inability to make good national security decisions.

So what has he done wrong? You can't name a damned thing! That is your libtard TDS brain talking!
All you have is "Orange Man Bad!" and can never get past that stage.

How about you man up and tell us the FACTS of what he did wrong and not your demented opinions based on your poor education and inability to read for comprehension?

Where to start:

He has abused his power to:

1. Use the Department of Justice, and Republican Leadership in the Senate to continue to "investigate" Hillary Clinton for daring to be a reason, competent, leader who has never been credibily accused of a crime, never been indicted, and never seen any of her staffers thrown in jail.

To date, none of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judicial Watch, the FBI, or the Huber Investigation has found any crimes that Hillary Clinton committed and none of the have charged her with anything.

2. The use of the office of the President to try to force investigations of the Bidens and the DNC by the Ukrainians, in an effort to prove discredited conspiracy theories, and to illegally smear the Bidens in the same way Trump smeared Hillary Clinton in the last election.

3. The use of the office of the President to remove honest civil servants who stood in the way of the President's illegal actions and schemes, aka "firing Maria Yovanovich to further investigations of the Bidens".

4. Using the office of the Presidency to threaten and intimmidate witnesses.

5. Firing, denigrating and slandering anyone who participated in investigations of the Russians, the Trump Campaign, or the 2016 elections.

6. Obstructing Constitutionally mandated Congressional Oversight.

7. Refusing to obey Court Orders prohibitting separation of families.

8. Abuses of emoluments and milking the public purse to the benefit of his golf courses and businesses at every opportunity, including but not limited to "suggesting" Mike Pence stay at his Irish Resort; using refuelling stops near his Scotish Golf Resorts to boost his failing resorts there; having staff hold parties at Trump Hotel Washington.

I'm going to stop at 8. These are all things Trump has done in the last month, without mentioning murder a senior member of the Iranian Cabinet without first discussing it with Congress, NATO, the Iraqi's or anyone else. Trump is the President the Founding Fathers feared - the man who would be King, resulting in 176 people getting accidentally shot down and killed in the frivolity which ensued, 30 of which were young Canadians returning home from a wedding in Iran.

Now Trump wants NATO to negotiate a treaty with the Iranians, since they won't talk to him. NATO already did that, along with the Chinese and the Russians, and Dumb Donald tore it up and tried to start a war with Iran. Why would they do that? Just to have Trump tear it up again?

You broke it, you bought it.

 

[kyzr]

1. You chikin-shit, refuse to answer the simple "terrorist group" question with a YES or a NO, so thanks for playing. We're done.

2. Copied from your link. Says that the BRITISH, not the US, armed ISIS to oppose Assad. Lying chikin-shit.
"On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.
The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition."

3. Lying again, ISIS has NOTHING to do with repelling "invaders" Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia
"ISIS is a terrorist militant group and a former unrecognised proto-state[88] that follows a fundamentalist, Salafi jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam.[89][90] ISIL gained global prominence in early 2014 when it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in its Western Iraq offensive,[91] followed by its capture of Mosul[92] and the Sinjar massacre.[93]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Maybe no one ever told you, but you have absolutely no "common sense" if you are okay with terrorist groups having access to nuclear weapons.
Just remember that if any "loose nuke" just happens to hit the US, the country that the weapon came from gets obliterated. Just so you know that your concern for an "attack" is very understated when nuclear weapons are involved. IMHO its much better limiting access to nukes to only the most responsible countries with ironclad security protections rather than states that sponsor terrorist groups. The consequences necessarily get much more severe when nuclear weapons are involved, just so you know.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

There were no weapons of mass destruction. We should have left long ago. Now our troops are in harm's way for people who don't appreciate them. TROOPS OUT!

[VIDEO]

Iraq ,south Korea, germany , Japan

We should cut half our bases ...

 

[pknopp]

Do you consider Iran to be a terrorist nation?

As I said, I have NO problem with them becoming nuclear.

I can't answer any further as we do not agree with who are terrorists and who are not. If you want a more specific answer you need and ask a more specific question.

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Maybe no one ever told you, but you have absolutely no "common sense" if you are okay with terrorist groups having access to nuclear weapons.
Just remember that if any "loose nuke" just happens to hit the US, the country that the weapon came from gets obliterated. Just so you know that your concern for an "attack" is very understated when nuclear weapons are involved. IMHO its much better limiting access to nukes to only the most responsible countries with ironclad security protections rather than states that sponsor terrorist groups. The consequences necessarily get much more severe when nuclear weapons are involved, just so you know.

Don't forget.....if they have nukes it's far less likely we invade them.

 

[kyzr]

Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" so any nukes they develop could be given to "terrorist groups"
Iran and state-sponsored terrorism - Wikipedia

If you're okay with Iran having nukes we disagree.
Are you okay with the following "terrorist groups" having nuclear weapons, Yes/No?
Al Qaeda
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah

If yes, what do you plan to do about it?
If No, then we disagree and I hope you aren't proven wrong with a big mushroom cloud.

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Maybe no one ever told you, but you have absolutely no "common sense" if you are okay with terrorist groups having access to nuclear weapons.
Just remember that if any "loose nuke" just happens to hit the US, the country that the weapon came from gets obliterated. Just so you know that your concern for an "attack" is very understated when nuclear weapons are involved. IMHO its much better limiting access to nukes to only the most responsible countries with ironclad security protections rather than states that sponsor terrorist groups. The consequences necessarily get much more severe when nuclear weapons are involved, just so you know.

Don't forget.....if they have nukes it's far less likely we invade them.

If they misbehave with nukes we'd do a lot worse than invade them.

 

[pknopp]

I worry far more about us using one. I'm not going to tell others that they can not do what we so readily do.

If you want to lead by example then great.

OMG you still can't answer a simple fucking question?!

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Maybe no one ever told you, but you have absolutely no "common sense" if you are okay with terrorist groups having access to nuclear weapons.
Just remember that if any "loose nuke" just happens to hit the US, the country that the weapon came from gets obliterated. Just so you know that your concern for an "attack" is very understated when nuclear weapons are involved. IMHO its much better limiting access to nukes to only the most responsible countries with ironclad security protections rather than states that sponsor terrorist groups. The consequences necessarily get much more severe when nuclear weapons are involved, just so you know.

Don't forget.....if they have nukes it's far less likely we invade them.

If they misbehave with nukes we'd do a lot worse than invade them.

If that ever happens we can discuss it. As for now all it takes is a few lies to get us to invade.

 

[lennypartiv]

Normally Tucker Carlson makes sense. Not this time.

 

[lennypartiv]

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Some people deserve to be attacked. The middle east is a perfect example. Too bad were limiting our attacks to a few countries.

 

[pknopp]

I did. If it keeps us from attacking more people, I'm good with it.

Some people deserve to be attacked. The middle east is a perfect example. Too bad were limiting our attacks to a few countries.

This is why they need nukes.

 

[YoursTruly]

So Trump is a coward. he attacks. They attack back. And he runs like a little bitch. You Trump supporters should be so ashamed of the coward you voted for.
Yeah yeah, I know, I know. You're all saying Trump didn't back down. But the facts speak for themselves. Captain "bone spurs" is a spineless coward, and let Iran show him who's boss.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That speech Trump made yesterday should be enough to convince anyone that he is dangerously incompetent as commander in chief. We should all be questioning his ability to handle threats in a tactically responsible way.

Dumbass. That is your biggest problem you are nothing but a dumbass!

Do you actually think Trump has been a steady deliberative Commander in Chief? Shit, he shows his incompetence every time he makes a move. He probably could not even play a decent game of Risk. Trump is a tactical retard, the events of the last few days speak volumes about his inability to make good national security decisions.

So what has he done wrong? You can't name a damned thing! That is your libtard TDS brain talking!
All you have is "Orange Man Bad!" and can never get past that stage.

How about you man up and tell us the FACTS of what he did wrong and not your demented opinions based on your poor education and inability to read for comprehension?

Where to start:

He has abused his power to:

1. Use the Department of Justice, and Republican Leadership in the Senate to continue to "investigate" Hillary Clinton for daring to be a reason, competent, leader who has never been credibily accused of a crime, never been indicted, and never seen any of her staffers thrown in jail.

To date, none of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judicial Watch, the FBI, or the Huber Investigation has found any crimes that Hillary Clinton committed and none of the have charged her with anything.

2. The use of the office of the President to try to force investigations of the Bidens and the DNC by the Ukrainians, in an effort to prove discredited conspiracy theories, and to illegally smear the Bidens in the same way Trump smeared Hillary Clinton in the last election.

3. The use of the office of the President to remove honest civil servants who stood in the way of the President's illegal actions and schemes, aka "firing Maria Yovanovich to further investigations of the Bidens".

4. Using the office of the Presidency to threaten and intimmidate witnesses.

5. Firing, denigrating and slandering anyone who participated in investigations of the Russians, the Trump Campaign, or the 2016 elections.

6. Obstructing Constitutionally mandated Congressional Oversight.

7. Refusing to obey Court Orders prohibitting separation of families.

8. Abuses of emoluments and milking the public purse to the benefit of his golf courses and businesses at every opportunity, including but not limited to "suggesting" Mike Pence stay at his Irish Resort; using refuelling stops near his Scotish Golf Resorts to boost his failing resorts there; having staff hold parties at Trump Hotel Washington.

I'm going to stop at 8. These are all things Trump has done in the last month, without mentioning murder a senior member of the Iranian Cabinet without first discussing it with Congress, NATO, the Iraqi's or anyone else. Trump is the President the Founding Fathers feared - the man who would be King, resulting in 176 people getting accidentally shot down and killed in the frivolity which ensued, 30 of which were young Canadians returning home from a wedding in Iran.

Now Trump wants NATO to negotiate a treaty with the Iranians, since they won't talk to him. NATO already did that, along with the Chinese and the Russians, and Dumb Donald tore it up and tried to start a war with Iran. Why would they do that? Just to have Trump tear it up again?

You broke it, you bought it.

It's good that stopped at 8, because any more lies and your post would have imploded under its own weight!

It would be easy to answer of every one of your lies, but it has all been done ad nauseum, You will just have to be satisfied with a simple "STFU you lying piece of shit!" I think that covers it pretty succinctly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So Trump is a coward. he attacks. They attack back. And he runs like a little bitch. You Trump supporters should be so ashamed of the coward you voted for.
Yeah yeah, I know, I know. You're all saying Trump didn't back down. But the facts speak for themselves. Captain "bone spurs" is a spineless coward, and let Iran show him who's boss.

Lying POS is all you have to offer.

Goodbye dumbass!

 

[basquebromance]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: WE DID IT!

WE WON THE WAR ON TERROR!

USA! USA! USA! USA!

 

[JoeB131]

MHO the "lid on things" are the drones we have to kill those who need to be killed.
We don't need kids kicking in doors looking for ISIS hiding under beds.
I'm also fine bringing US troops home, then what happens happens, it saves us a lot of wasted money.

No, we don't do that, the Iranians and their Militias did that for us, and we turned a blind eye. Now we are whining because the Iranians are running Iraq...

Not to worry, when Trump retreats from Iraq with his tail between his legs, you'll be rationalizing that, too.

 

[Norman]

MHO the "lid on things" are the drones we have to kill those who need to be killed.
We don't need kids kicking in doors looking for ISIS hiding under beds.
I'm also fine bringing US troops home, then what happens happens, it saves us a lot of wasted money.

No, we don't do that, the Iranians and their Militias did that for us, and we turned a blind eye. Now we are whining because the Iranians are running Iraq...

Not to worry, when Trump retreats from Iraq with his tail between his legs, you'll be rationalizing that, too.

In one sentence you are saying Trump is a war monger. In other you say he is a coward.

Try to stick with one argument. This is what happens when all you got is "ORANGE MAN BAD!". You would sure love that war with Iran to weaken America, the place you hate even more than Trump.