Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 15 2017 02:05pm)

Obamas fatal flaw was micromanaging generals and firing generals for using standard military procedure.

Obama ordered military officers to avoid attacking mosques and civilians, which is how you lose a war. This is a simple black and white distinction but youre deluded by your hatred here.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 15 2017 04:11pm)

"youre deluded by your hatred here"

you've been doing this all month, you just keep using phrases like this when posting at me. most of the time you miss by a mile, like here, where you somehow infer i side with Obama.

Obama was an ok dude domestically, didnt really get much done but a few creature comforts. but his foreign policy is only second to Bush2's in my lifetime for how bad it was. I actually think he's worse than Bush as he doesnt have a rabid public on his back from the post 911 anger. In no way do i like or condone any of Obama's foreign policy moves, not the red line, not Libya, not drones, not Israeli-Palestinian politics, etc.

now, would you like to try again or are you just going to keep presenting your simplified generalities for the enjoyment of your peers? if the latter maybe stick to memes

Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 15 2017 03:27pm)

Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 15 2017 02:27pm)

Quote (Skinned @ Dec 15 2017 04:30pm)

#mgtow

Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 15 2017 02:37pm)

I have a gf. And not someone elses sloppy seconds

Quote (IceMage @ Dec 15 2017 01:21am)

Status quo American foreign policy is hawkish, and I don't think we can just put aside a president's rhetoric, even when that president is known to speak in hyperbole. Trump has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. Yes, Syria continues to wind down, I don't think there's good reason to think that wouldn't happen under a president Clinton. He's punted the Iran deal to congress, which is a move praised by hawks. He doesn't seem interested in empowering the State Department or his SoS, which may just point to his ignorant isolationism more than his hawkishness, because he doesn't realize if these problems aren't solved diplomatically they'll have to be solved militarily.

Trump hasn't faced the same circumstances as Bush or Obama... so far he hasn't really had a clear cut situation where past presidents would've intervened. Trump's instincts are non-interventionist, I agree, but he's surrounded himself with status quo national security officials who want to arm Ukraine and increase our presence in the Middle East.

Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 15 2017 03:00pm)

Maintaining the status quo is not hawkish. The trend of US presidents was to be hawkish, which created new conflicts, but staying committed to the conflicts we are already in isn't hawkish, making new ones is.
Trump has faced at least one major challenge now in the Myanmar crisis, and his instinct was non-interventionalist. And that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. Did he allow a humanitarian crisis to unfold, or did he avert the usual US fuck-up that makes things worse?
But as far as hawkishness, if that's our only real data point to examine, Trump is not a hawk, nor a dove. A dove would withdraw from syria and the middle east and all that, but there is a middle ground that is not strongly in one direction or the other

Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 15 2017 04:00pm)

Maintaining the status quo is not hawkish. The trend of US presidents was to be hawkish, which created new conflicts, but staying committed to the conflicts we are already in isn't hawkish, making new ones is.
Trump has faced at least one major challenge now in the Myanmar crisis, and his instinct was non-interventionalist. And that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. Did he allow a humanitarian crisis to unfold, or did he avert the usual US fuck-up that makes things worse?
But as far as hawkishness, if that's our only real data point to examine, Trump is not a hawk, nor a dove. A dove would withdraw from syria and the middle east and all that, but there is a middle ground that is not strongly in one direction or the other

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 15 2017 03:06pm)

ive heard hawkishness used to describe military spending priority as well. of which trump is undoubtedly hawkish in. im not sure why you wouldnt use NK, the Yemen raid, or Syria as data points either.

So far id say he's been less hawkish in action than HRC would have been up to this point, but he's got a hell of a lot of general and military spending rhetoric. That could be just the old GOP industrial complex good for business talk, but he spoke often about cutting waste and fraud from certain contracts in the primary stage.