Mattis Quits

[Lucky]

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has resigned in light of Trump's decision to give Putin a Christmas present and withdraw US troops from Syria. Mattis told Trump in his letter of resignation: " “My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis wrote. “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.”

Lying, as is his wont, Trump said Mattis was retiring, rather than resigning. The resignation isn't effective until February 28th, 2019. By then, Trump will likely have lost several other key members of his administration who choose to follow Mattis' lead and get out before the house collapses on top of them.

[mvan1]

3 hours ago, Lucky said:

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has resigned in light of Trump's decision to give Putin a Christmas present and withdraw US troops from Syria. Mattis told Trump in his letter of resignation: " “My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis wrote. “We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.”

Lying, as is his wont, Trump said Mattis was retiring, rather than resigning. The resignation isn't effective until February 28th, 2019. By then, Trump will likely have lost several other key members of his administration who choose to follow Mattis' lead and get out before the house collapses on top of them.

Mattis was the only sane member of psycho Trump's cabinet - not a good sign for things to some 

Edited December 21, 2018 by mvan1

[tassojunior]

Now we're glorifying "Maddog" generals who claim to love to kill and invade other countries???? wtf?

 

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by tassojunior

[mvan1]

45 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

 

-Now we're glorifying "Maddog" generals who claim to love to kill and invade other countries???? wtf?

-

 

Are you serious?

General Mattis loves to kill and invade other countries?

I had no idea that you are a Trump supporter!

I would not have guessed. 

 

 

[tassojunior]

7 minutes ago, mvan1 said:

Are you serious?

General Mattis loves to kill and invade other countries?

I had no idea that you are a Trump supporter!

I would not have guessed. 

 

 

Im no Trump supporter but I'm no militarist warmonger either. 

Invading other counties is wrong.

Edited December 21, 2018 by tassojunior

[mvan1]

4 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

Im no Trump supporter but I'm no militarist warmonger either. This is fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

The above description pretty much describes that psycho, Trump - 

It does not describe General Mattis!

Edited December 21, 2018 by mvan1

[Latbear4blk]

@tassojunior is making a good point. We all are so overwhelmed by Trump's scandalous and shameful presidency, that we are glorifying people we usually (I would) would be critics of. 

The point is, Tasso, that right now in this political moment, our main goal is to stop the raise of American racism, nationalism and authoritarianism (in my opinion it is a misconception to characterize it as fascism), represented by Trump. This is so important tat all the actors who agree on this goal should put their differences aside until Amrican political trajectory is corrupted and put back in a good track. Once liberal democracy is back in power and strong, we can go back to argue as we used to.

I never liked them, but right now, I am fine with glorifying Bushes, McCains, and Mattises. 

[Lucky]

Most generals are not war mongers, Mattis included. He does support our allies, and he believes in honoring our treaties with them. Because Trump is dumping the Kurds and our strategic alliance, Mattis does not favor that. So, it isn't war mongering, it is valid defense in support of our commitments.

[tassojunior]

Mattis quit the day Trump announced our troops withdrawing from Syria. Ending that illegal occupation and stopping the US slaughter of many innocent people we are killing there is a good thing. A wonderful thing. It has nothing to do with the Kurds. They will be fine in Syria. And Russia, who is very closeby, will wipe out what's left of the US-supported ISIS and other Islamist groups. We just killed 200 Russians who were attacking ISIS remnants in the US-occupied eastern Syria. Our only purpose in occupying eastern Syria is to protect the ISIS-affiliated groups from being wiped out. The"Islamist Caliphate" as a Sunni buffer between Shia countries has been a CIA plan since the invasion of Iraq. 

As for not supporting allies, it's also great news that we may be backing down from our intense support for the Saudi genocide in Yemen. I'm also 100% for that. 

The Nazis came to power in Germany because they were "better than the Russians". The path we're on. 

[mvan1]

http://www.tooold.net/video/trump_bad_man.mp4

[AdamSmith]

7 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Mattis quit the day Trump announced our troops withdrawing from Syria. Ending that illegal occupation and stopping the US slaughter of many innocent people we are killing there is a good thing. A wonderful thing. It has nothing to do with the Kurds. They will be fine in Syria. And Russia, who is very closeby, will wipe out what's left of the US-supported ISIS and other Islamist groups. We just killed 200 Russians who were attacking ISIS remnants in the US-occupied eastern Syria. Our only purpose in occupying eastern Syria is to protect the ISIS-affiliated groups from being wiped out. The"Islamist Caliphate" as a Sunni buffer between Shia countries has been a CIA plan since the invasion of Iraq. 

As for not supporting allies, it's also great news that we may be backing down from our intense support for the Saudi genocide in Yemen. I'm also 100% for that. 

The Nazis came to power in Germany because they were "better than the Russians". The path we're on. 

This is possibly the most upside-down logic I have ever seen here.

Which is to say something.

[mvan1]

58 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

This is possibly the most upside-down logic I have ever seen here.

Which is to say something.

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion - 

One simple way to describe the post is shown in the below video:

 

[AdamSmith]

4 minutes ago, mvan1 said:

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion - 

One simple way to describe the post is shown in the below video:

 

He wanted to sow

A few wild oats

But he preferred

Banana boats

[mvan1]

9 hours ago, tassojunior said:

 

The Nazis came to power in Germany because they were "better than the Russians". The path we're on. 

 

 

https://giphy.com/gifs/donald-trump-face-of-evil-spinning-heads-5faZYaaxDWHOU

Edited December 22, 2018 by mvan1

[tassojunior]

When we start advocating continuing occupation and killing brown people because the other side wants to now stop, just because it's the new position of the other side (or at least their kooky president) , we've lost all morals. 

Killing people and occupying foreign countries is not a game. Anything that stops it is good. 

[TotallyOz]

Trump's desire all along has been to burn the house down. He has done that with every single agency under his control.  This should surprise no one. He does not think about the good of the USA or its allies. He thinks about Trump.  ONLY. And, that is what people elected and they are happy with it.

[mvan1]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

Trump's desire all along has been to burn the house down. He has done that with every single agency under his control.  This should surprise no one. He does not think about the good of the USA or its allies. He thinks about Trump.  ONLY. And, that is what people elected and they are happy with it.

Edit - "And, that is what psycho Trump's base elected and they are happy with it."

[Latbear4blk]

18 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

@tassojunior is making a good point. We all are so overwhelmed by Trump's scandalous and shameful presidency, that we are glorifying people we usually (I would) would be critics of. 

The point is, Tasso, that right now in this political moment, our main goal is to stop the raise of American racism, nationalism and authoritarianism (in my opinion it is a misconception to characterize it as fascism), represented by Trump. This is so important tat all the actors who agree on this goal should put their differences aside until Amrican political trajectory is corrupted and put back in a good track. Once liberal democracy is back in power and strong, we can go back to argue as we used to.

I never liked them, but right now, I am fine with glorifying Bushes, McCains, and Mattises. 

Sometimes I wonder How people understands my posts. 

Beyond all the typos in this post, please read "corrected" where the self corrector wrote "corrupted", in the second paragraph.

[Latbear4blk]

2 hours ago, tassojunior said:

When we start advocating continuing occupation and killing brown people because the other side wants to now stop, just because it's the new position of the other side (or at least their kooky president) , we've lost all morals. 

Killing people and occupying foreign countries is not a game. Anything that stops it is good. 

Your opinions in this thread, in addition to your fondness for Secrets DC, are making me suspect that you are actually a Russian bot spreading fake news.

[Latbear4blk]

2 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Trump's desire all along has been to burn the house down. He has done that with every single agency under his control.  This should surprise no one. He does not think about the good of the USA or its allies. He thinks about Trump.  ONLY. And, that is what people elected and they are happy with it.

Do not forget that he lost the vote of the people. He was elected by the Electoral College. 

[tassojunior]

The only valid concern I would have is the protection of the Kurds from Turkish attack. But I don't think we have any troops in the Kurdish area and wouldn't lift a finger to help them no matter who attacked them. Moving US troops to Kurdish areas to protect them would be fine. But that will never happen. 

[Lucky]

tassojunior, I don't mean to be rude, but you do not seem to be well educated on the crisis in Syria. The US does not "occupy" the country, and one of our goals is (was) to protect the Kurds. Taking on ISIS is necessary. If we don't, many brown people will die.

Had we invaded Syria, as we did Iraq, you might have been on to something.

(Just my opinion, by the way. I generally agree with tassojunior.)

Edited December 22, 2018 by Lucky

[tassojunior]

4 hours ago, Lucky said:

tassojunior, I don't mean to be rude, but you do not seem to be well educated on the crisis in Syria. The US does not "occupy" the country, and one of our goals is (was) to protect the Kurds. Taking on ISIS is necessary. If we don't, many brown people will die.

Had we invaded Syria, as we did Iraq, you might have been on to something.

(Just my opinion, by the way. I generally agree with tassojunior.)

We illegally occupy the eastern 1/3 of Syria and principally are there to protect the Islamist remnants of ISIS from attack by Syria and Russia. Not to protect the Kurds in their separate area. We just killed 200 Russians attacking remnants of ISIS there. 

I think if you talk candidly with any low level US soldier in any of our invaded middle east countries they will admit their understanding of the mission is to kill as many "sand ni**ers" as possible. They're perhaps right.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by tassojunior

[AdamSmith]

2 hours ago, tassojunior said:

We illegally occupy the eastern 1/3 of Syria and principally are there to protect the Islamist remnants of ISIS from attack by Syria and Russia. Not to protect the Kurds in their separate area. We just killed 200 Russians attacking remnants of ISIS there. 

I think if you talk candidly with any low level US soldier in any of our invaded middle east countries they will admit their understanding of the mission is to kill as many "sand ni**ers" as possible. They're perhaps right.

 

This post is the single most offensive and wrong -- and self-revealing -- thing I have ever read here.

[mvan1]

10 hours ago, tassojunior said:

We illegally occupy the eastern 1/3 of Syria and principally are there to protect the Islamist remnants of ISIS from attack by Syria and Russia. Not to protect the Kurds in their separate area. We just killed 200 Russians attacking remnants of ISIS there. 

I think if you talk candidly with any low level US soldier in any of our invaded middle east countries they will admit their understanding of the mission is to kill as many "sand ni**ers" as possible. They're perhaps right.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=coo+coo+sound&oq=coo+coo+sound&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61j0l4.11335j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8