Is Donald Trump Done for?

So let me see if I understand this - Trump gets credit for leaving places, even if terrorists assume control. Obama gets blame for leaving places because terrorists took control.

Makes sense :lol:

Trump gets credit for not starting any wars, thats why he's better than Obama. We weren't in Libya and Syria, those are on Obama. As for Obama and Iraq/ISIS, why would he get credit for pulling out of Iraq if he went back in and left the mess at Trump's door?
 
Trump gets credit for supporting the Saudis in Yemen and the killings there. Trump is feeding the conflict with dollars/aid if not troops. He disengaged us from Syria to let a brutal dictator stay in power. He supports Israel in its suppression of Palestinians; he encourages war against Iran; he is working to help Turkey destroy the Kurds. You can nit pick some details, but Trump has been inflaming the area with more anger, hate and destruction.
 
Trump gets credit for not starting any wars, thats why he's better than Obama.

Trump introduced U.S. ground troops to combat in Somalia, starting U.S. involvement in ground operations there. U.S. ground troops are elsewhere in Africa as well, running combat missions in countries we have previously not been engaged in.

Going by your broad definition, Trump appears to have started several wars directed at counter-insurgency. If French-led intervention in Libya and a civil war starting in Syria are somehow Obama's fault, certainly all the new ground combat missions in Africa are on Trump.
 
Trump gets credit for supporting the Saudis in Yemen and the killings there. Trump is feeding the conflict with dollars/aid if not troops. He disengaged us from Syria to let a brutal dictator stay in power. He supports Israel in its suppression of Palestinians; he encourages war against Iran; he is working to help Turkey destroy the Kurds. You can nit pick some details, but Trump has been inflaming the area with more anger, hate and destruction.
I can agree with almost all of this except for the last line. The support of Israel has quieted things that boiled up during the Obama administration.

More than anything there is a clearer regionwide policy. The first point is that Israel is our ally. The second is that ISIS is our enemy. Many choices are among bad and worse, particularly in this region. In most cases, a clear choice is preferable to playing both options. So, in spite of issues, you get improved stability.

Trump introduced U.S. ground troops to combat in Somalia, starting U.S. involvement in ground operations there. U.S. ground troops are elsewhere in Africa as well, running combat missions in countries we have previously not been engaged in.

Going by your broad definition, Trump appears to have started several wars directed at counter-insurgency. If French-led intervention in Libya and a civil war starting in Syria are somehow Obama's fault, certainly all the new ground combat missions in Africa are on Trump.
That is indeed a very broad definition of war. It is not the one he used, but it is broad.

J
 
If deploying troops is starting a war, then that is certainly an alternative fact.

That's not my definition. Berzerker claims Obama started a war in Libya, even though the French initiated Western intervention in a civil war that was already ongoing and we joined at their request. Same thing in Syria - the civil war was already ongoing and our troops intervened in support of Kurds and other allies, and against ISIS.

Our intervention in Somalia and elsewhere in Africa has been the exact same thing - allies of ours are fighting terrorist or rebel insurgencies and we've introduced ground troops to intervene on their behalf. One can certainly argue the merits of some interventions versus others, but it simply mis-states the nature of our interventions to treat Trump's as anything different from the types of interventions we've had over the past 2 decades (apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously).
 
Last edited:
I can agree with almost all of this except for the last line. The support of Israel has quieted things that boiled up during the Obama administration.

More than anything there is a clearer regionwide policy. The first point is that Israel is our ally. The second is that ISIS is our enemy. Many choices are among bad and worse, particularly in this region. In most cases, a clear choice is preferable to playing both options. So, in spite of issues, you get improved stability.
J
It is pretty easy to pick very narrow windows of time and affix blame or credit for events in that tiny window. You say Israel is our ally. How about GB and France and Germany? Trump seems to have no problem screwing them over and destabilizing NATO. The big picture is that the ME is just as f'ed up now as it was 10 years ago and 20 years ago and 30 years ago etc. The focus shifts around and the key players change, but nobody has improved things all around. Trump's role has been to stir the pot with Jerusalem; back Assad in Syria, abandon the Kurds and threaten war with Iran while he aids in the Saudi attacks on Yemen. At home he declares Muslims personna non grata.
 
That's not my definition. Berzerker claims Obama started a war in Libya, even though the French initiated Western intervention in a civil war that was already ongoing and we joined at their request.

The french wanted that war but couldn't have started it without the US. It started as a palace coup where some figure from the government rebelled after they were encouraged with promises of support... a pattern often repeated.
 
The french wanted that war but couldn't have started it without the US.

What war? NATO used no ground troops, and the Libyans were engaged in their own civil war at the time.
 
Bush started the 'surge' in '07 and it had largely worked by the time Obama entered office. Based on the success Bush later agreed with the Iraqis we'd leave by '11, Obama wanted to leave so he didn't try to change the deal. Course the Sunnis were just biding their time, if things didn't improve and we were gone, they'd start fighting again. War broke out in Syria that year allowing for Sunni expansion if the insurgency resumed, and it did.
.

G.W.Bush and hes Neocon advisors didnt do anything.
It was the work of men like Petraues, Mattis, Gates and McMasters
 
Trump gets credit for supporting the Saudis in Yemen and the killings there. Trump is feeding the conflict with dollars/aid if not troops. He disengaged us from Syria to let a brutal dictator stay in power. He supports Israel in its suppression of Palestinians; he encourages war against Iran; he is working to help Turkey destroy the Kurds. You can nit pick some details, but Trump has been inflaming the area with more anger, hate and destruction.

Is that an endorsement of Bush 2's invasion of Iraq? Cant let them brutal dictators stay in power sounds like one of the reasons for the Iraq War, that would make Bush 2 one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Yemen started on Obama's watch during the Arab Spring and he sold weapons to the Saudis too. How is Trump helping Turkey destroy the Kurds? Israel-Palestine is Trump's fault?

What has Trump done you think is on the same level or worse than the destruction of Libya and Syria?

Trump introduced U.S. ground troops to combat in Somalia, starting U.S. involvement in ground operations there. U.S. ground troops are elsewhere in Africa as well, running combat missions in countries we have previously not been engaged in.

Going by your broad definition, Trump appears to have started several wars directed at counter-insurgency. If French-led intervention in Libya and a civil war starting in Syria are somehow Obama's fault, certainly all the new ground combat missions in Africa are on Trump.

We've been at war in Somalia for years, you're not citing any wars Trump started. Obama armed the Syrian rebels and took part in dismantling Libya. If the US opposed attacking Libya NATO wouldn't have attacked Libya.

G.W.Bush and hes Neocon advisors didnt do anything. It was the work of men like Petraues, Mattis, Gates and McMasters

Who gave the order?
 
We've been at war in Somalia for years, you're not citing any wars Trump started. Obama armed the Syrian rebels and took part in dismantling Libya.

So Obama started the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, is your contention here?

How then is Trump's decision to arm the Ukrainians against Russia not "starting a war" under your definition here?
 
In all fairness the US was arming the Ukrainians before Trump.
 
... and also the US also isn't the only player in town. It's not like you can just decide these things. Usually, things don't go as planned, even for the US.
 
In all fairness the US was arming the Ukrainians before Trump.

We weren't. Congress passed authorization in 2014 for it, but the Obama administration did not follow through. Arms sales didn't begin until 2017 under Trump, and we've been providing air, naval, anti-tank. All kinds of light and heavy weaponry. All new under Trump.

So under Berzerker's definition, here we have Trump starting a war that Obama had decided not to start.
 
Believe what you must.
 
We weren't. Congress passed authorization in 2014 for it, but the Obama administration did not follow through. Arms sales didn't begin until 2017 under Trump, and we've been providing air, naval, anti-tank. All kinds of light and heavy weaponry. All new under Trump.

So under Berzerker's definition, here we have Trump starting a war that Obama had decided not to start.

Wait, "we started arming the Ukrainians under Trump" is not really compatible with "Trump is a Russian puppet"
 
It could be. Escalating the war means more opportunity for profiteering and land grabs.

Remember, this is Putin and Trump we're talking about. They will eagerly trade lives for money and power.

Believe what you must.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer

"On December 22, 2017, the Trump administration approved supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, capping a nearly three-year debate in Washington over whether the United States should provide lethal defensive weapons to counter further Russian aggression in Europe. A few days prior the US Department of State announced that senior officials had authorized a sizeable export of US-made snipers, ammunition, and accessories. The shift in US policy under the Trump administration has been misunderstood. The US government is directly supplying lethal defense hardware to the Ukrainian military for the first time, although US-made lethal weapons have been in Ukraine since 2015."

In other words, previously U.S.-made lethal arms made their way to Ukraine, but not by action of Obama. Trump changed that policy and provided direct lethal military hardware to Ukraine, where Obama did not.
 
Top Bottom