Secretary of State - Have you learned the lesson of the Iraq War.

I've been pretty disappointed with the people being mentioned as potential secretary of state.



David Patreus - plead guilty to releasing classified information while head of the CIA. I know Trump won't prosecute Clinton but this is about as bad as it gets.



John Bolton - Hasn't learned his lesson about Iraq war. Still thinks it was a good idea. As far from America first as you can get.



Rudy Guiliani - As bad as Bolton. Interventionist supreme. They should change the name back to secretary of war if he is chosen.



Mitt Romney - Supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He could pass the test. Would need a lot of vetting. At least he isn't a war monger like the first three.



Bob Corker - Supported wars. Calls himself a realist but initially supported regime change. Continues to advocate arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Not a great choice. He'd still make it through as he has enough friends in the Senate. And he's far better than Patreus-Bolton-Guiliani triumvirate of evil.



Nikki Haley



The problem is all of these guys keep the status quo. Donald ran on America first and he needs to keep that promise. I'm not sure he can do it with a bunch of people who don't realize how spectacularly stupid the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are.



https://www.thenation.com/article/rand-paul-will-do-whatever-it-takes-to-block-donald-trumps-hawkish-secretary-of-state-picks/

Bob Corker would be awful. He single-handedly flipped the treaty provision in the Constitution 180 degrees. Where before you needed 2/3 of the Senate to approve a treaty, you now needed 2/3 to DISapprove a treaty.



He did this so Obama could get his legacy-defining deal with Iran to help them develop a nuclear weapon.

Pretty sure Nikki Haley is off the list for now.

Saying "they were for the Iraq War" is kinda like saying "they were a politician in 2001" .

There were plenty of politicians against the Iraq war in 2001. And Corker supported the wars and escalations in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan as recently as 2007 as did Romney (which is why either of them would need careful vetting to see if their belief in regime change is now in line with Trump). Bolton and Giuliani are just complete imbeciles. And the hypocrisy of David Patreus as SoS is astonishing even for Donald Trump.



Corker's proposal is to treat the Iran deal not a treaty. The lifting of sanctions on Iran is one of the few things Obama has gotten right. Now, if he would stop antagonizing the Russians and tell the Saudis and Israelis we won't carry their water, we can get out of the middle east we'll make ourselves a smaller target for the jihadists.

jvquarterback wrote:
Corker's proposal is to treat the Iran deal not a treaty. The lifting of sanctions on Iran is one of the few things Obama has gotten right. Now, if he would stop antagonizing the Russians and tell the Saudis and Israelis we won't carry their water, we can get out of the middle east we'll make ourselves a smaller target for the jihadists.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

jvquarterback wrote:
There were plenty of politicians against the Iraq war in 2001. And Corker supported the wars and escalations in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan as recently as 2007 as did Romney (which is why either of them would need careful vetting to see if their belief in regime change is now in line with Trump). Bolton and Giuliani are just complete imbeciles. And the hypocrisy of David Patreus as SoS is astonishing even for Donald Trump.



Corker's proposal is to treat the Iran deal not a treaty. The lifting of sanctions on Iran is one of the few things Obama has gotten right. Now, if he would stop antagonizing the Russians and tell the Saudis and Israelis we won't carry their water, we can get out of the middle east we'll make ourselves a smaller target for the jihadists.

Bolton is the one UN ambassador who has stood up to the UN. He has always been America first and has stood up for us against all the crap the UN has tried to foist upon our country.



Patreus was guilty (it was dirty that Obama was holding it over his head to make him go alone with his 'politically correct war" in Afganastan) but it was actually from pillow talk and not using any unsecured devices.



Guilliani brought murder and crime down to record lows by addressing the problem at its roots and not following along with previous NYC Mayors.



These guys are not warmongers but they don't subscribe to the philosophy of back off and hope they ignore us. If you think we can sit here and do nothing and hence not be bothered by Islamic terror you need to stop listening NPR or whoever is saying that. Islam is at war with everyone and everything that is not Islam (actually it is at war with itself too. If every person alive was Muslim the violence would probably be 10x worse because in Islam everyone who doesn't believe in what you think Islam means is also your enemy - hence all the bombings in Muslim countries (sunni vs Shia). We are not the problem and this is not our problem. Islam has the problem and it is their problem to fix. Our problem is that Islam will not fix their problem. So we are stuck. They claim it is because of our actions as to why they attack. Well, then explain the Barbary pirates. Or the attack and pillage of Jeruselem before the Crusades to make Jerusalem Christian again. It was Christian until the Muslim hoards sacked it and turned it into "Muslim land". When the US started out we were not a world power and was still just a developing nation. But we still had problems with Islam because Islam has been a problem since it started in 600's (AD). Thomas Jefferson had a Koran so he could study it and understand his enemy and what it would take to defeat them - this btw is contrary to Libs who for some reason think he had it because he wanted to convert or respected the religion or some other nonsense they spout. There is no middle ground with Islam.



I have to wholeheartedly disagree with removing the sanctions on Iran. They are the county now most actively seeking a nuke because they plan to use it if they get one (or more). Even Sadam wasn't planning on using nukes at the first chance he got. Not since Castro has there been a regime hell bent on using nukes (people don't realize this but one of the reasons the USSR pulled their nukes from Cuba wasn't so much the blockade but because Castro was going to use them on the US and the USSR decided it was better they removed them before Castro started WWIII and killed 80-100 million people in the US). But I digress. Iran is trying to bring on the end of times. All that money sent to Iran is now being used to beef up their military and to support terrorists around the world. Did anyone really believe they would use it to build hospitals and roads? They have only one purpose and that is to start Armageddon. They believe the 13th Imam will come as soon as they do and it will be the start of the great Caliphate that dominates and controls the entire world. Again they are pure evil and no different than ISIS just a different sect.

Agree with Imuakahuku's post.



Reality - any of the folks in the running to be the new Secretary of State would be light years ahead of either lying Hillary Clinton or spineless Muslim apologist John Kerry.



Trump is playing this very close to the vest and no one knows who is likely to be picked.



My personal feeling is it's between Patreus and Romney. Trump met with both men for a 2nd time this week. No one knows what was discussed. I suspect we will know who Trump's "SOS" pick is by this Sunday.

So you guys are sticking with Muslims started everything during the Barbary wars? Ridiculous.



A democratically elected Iranian president was deposed and a madman backed by the US government was placed in power in the 1950s. But, but, but ... Jerusalem during the crusade. Don't bother to mention that there has been no military offensive by Muslims against a country outside the middle east since the 1700s -- it wouldn't work with your narrative. The Iranian and Russian boogeymen do fit your narrative though so I'm sure we'll hear more about that -- no matter how much is simply concocted in your minds.



Bolton has urged regime change in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else. He has been Hillary Clinton's cheerleader since his sorry butt was kicked to the curb -- but somehow he's a better choice? Come on. He hasn't learned the lesson of the Iraq war. He's a military worshipper and thinks the answer to every question is to use military force rather than diplomacy so we can waste the lives and riches of hard working Americans. Patreus is hardly better and don't get me started on Giuliani.



I've asked you guys this before and you never answer because you're beyond reason but I'll try again.



What percentage of terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims have been committed in countries without a military presence in the middle east? That answer should drive the whole of US policy in the middle east.



Donald Trump has shown himself to be a realist in foreign policy much like Ronald Reagan before him. It would be a shame if he chose someone as foolish as Bolton. I mean how can you argue with this:

You're right if we get out of the Middle East then the people of France, Belgium, Spain, the UK, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, the United States and Canada would never have any militant Islamic terrorist attacks.

jvquarterback wrote:

you're beyond reason but I'll try again.

Quite a statement considering we've never met, or had a conversation. Do you make wild assumptions about people all the time?

jvquarterback wrote:

I've asked you guys this before and you never answer because you're beyond reason but I'll try again.



What percentage of terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims have been committed in countries without a military presence in the middle east? That answer should drive the whole of US policy in the middle east.

Let's see, just off the top of my head, as I recall -



How about the Philippines? True, they was part of the coalition army in 2003-2004 (a grand total of 51 troops for exactly 1 year.). But, the Muslim terrorist group (Abu Sayyaf) began operating in the Philippines in 1991. Long before the short, limited military presence in the Middle East.



How about Nigeria? Chad? Niger? They seem to have a serious problem with Islamic Boko Haram and terrorism. I don't recall Nigeria, Chad, or Niger sending coalition troops to the Middle East.

Ddawg wrote:
How about the Philippines? True, they was part of the coalition army in 2003-2004 (a grand total of 51 troops for exactly 1 year.). But, the Muslim terrorist group (Abu Sayyaf) began operating in the Philippines in 1991. Long before the short, limited military presence in the Middle East.

Nice one. The founder of Abu Sayyaf was trained by US soldiers in Afghanistan during the 1980s. I don't think the argument against US intervention in the ME gets any better than that. The group fights a war that has been going on the since the 1950s (some say since the early 1900s) when the Filipino presidents (with US backing -- imagine that) began resettling landless Christian Filipinos in an area that was initially 98% Muslim. The ensuing violence has nothing to do with Jihadism, only with people fighting against forced colonization.



It's crap like this that passes for an argument for more involvement in the ME. And it proves 1) you haven't ever read more than a blurb about somebody mentioning there are "muslim extremists" in the Philippines, 2) you're beyond reason, or 3) you're an arms dealer interested in selling your garbage.

Ddawg wrote:
How about Nigeria? Chad? Niger? They seem to have a serious problem with Islamic Boko Haram and terrorism. I don't recall Nigeria, Chad, or Niger sending coalition troops to the Middle East.

Muslims have been there for a little while don't ya think?



So many Americans hear Muslim Extremism and start salivating like Pavlov's dogs. They don't give a second thought to the idea that there are generational grievances these people have against each other that are in no way related to religion, and even if they were based in religion, who cares? They pose absolutely no threat the the US. Maybe to someone's job in the military-congressional-industrial complex, but absolutely no threat to the US as long as we don't intervene.

And some of us have no idea what the truth is or what is happening behind closed doors. I don't know but I want the problem solved. I suspect it will never be fixed but at least we can refuse to contribute to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIeG_0WfaJw



A visual for a comparison of Islam vs the west.

rjaando wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIeG_0WfaJw



A visual for a comparison of Islam vs the west.

So, if I understand the point of the video, the hypothesis is that jihad has always been the Muslim way of evangelizing the world, and continues to this day. One can infer from this film that Muslim aggression would continue regardless of whether or not countries were involved in Middle Eastern affairs.



It is an interesting hypothesis. I am not sure I believe that modern muslims, outside of the extremists, consider a physical violent jihad the appropriate way to evangelize their beliefs, at least not from any of them that I have known. I believe attacks are carried out by a very slim minority, perhaps with the approval of a larger yet still minor part of the people.



The question, then, is why do extremists select the targets they do? I suppose the best way to answer that question would be to ask an extremist. I have no inclination to talk to an extremist. Perhaps the second best way is to listen to them when they explain why the carried out attacks. I haven't studied any of that in depth, nor do I care to, but I believe there are several reasons cited for their attacks. While support of Israel and military actions in countries containing large populations of muslims are part of the reason, I also believe I have heard the attacks due to our liberal culture, which is very much an affront to the muslim religion. The U.S. is cited as the great Satan, not just for its involvement in the Middle East, but for the very freedom that allows people to choose good and evil. Perhaps there is even, below the surface, a sense of jealousy that an infidel nation can be so prosperous...which may be a challenge to the very legitimacy of the muslim religion in the eyes of extremists.



In short, it is a complex issue, with some things that we could do to mitigate hostility towards us, but I don't think we could ever totally eliminate hostility towards us.

This isn't complex.



Number of guerrilla warfare actions against the US by "jihadists" prior to CIA interventions in the ME during the 1940-50s: Zero.



Number of guerrilla warfare actions against the US by "jihadists" since CIA interventions in the ME during the 1940-50s: Lots.

Define "guerrilla warfare actions" as you are using it. Either we're talking about different things, or you aren't aware of the Moro guerrilla actions against the US in the Philippines ca. 1900.

snoscythe wrote:
Define "guerrilla warfare actions" as you are using it. Either we're talking about different things, or you aren't aware of the Moro guerrilla actions against the US in the Philippines ca. 1900.

I wonder the Marines and Navy considered the Barbary pirates to utilize guerrilla tactics as well?

jvquarterback wrote:

Nice one. The founder of Abu Sayyaf was trained by US soldiers in Afghanistan during the 1980s. I don't think the argument against US intervention in the ME gets any better than that. The group fights a war that has been going on the since the 1950s (some say since the early 1900s) when the Filipino presidents (with US backing -- imagine that) began resettling landless Christian Filipinos in an area that was initially 98% Muslim. The ensuing violence has nothing to do with Jihadism, only with people fighting against forced colonization.



It's crap like this that passes for an argument for more involvement in the ME. And it proves 1) you haven't ever read more than a blurb about somebody mentioning there are "muslim extremists" in the Philippines, 2) you're beyond reason, or 3) you're an arms dealer interested in selling your garbage.

Ha ha ha! Quite hostile aren't you?



Exactly what makes your the expert from on high? Impress me with your expertise.



Thank you.

snoscythe wrote:
Define "guerrilla warfare actions" as you are using it. Either we're talking about different things, or you aren't aware of the Moro guerrilla actions against the US in the Philippines ca. 1900.

That's what happens when you begin colonizing places. What's going on now is no different than Native American resistance to Christian settlers in the Americas. The point is that when you antagonize people in their ancestral lands they aren't going to like you very much and it has nothing to do with their religion.

Ddawg wrote:
Quite hostile aren't you?

In case it's escaped your notice, I'm the one arguing against hostility.