Bombs Syria

>bombs Syria
>nuclear war with Korea
>now pic related

Wow guys I sure am glad we elected a guy who would put America first, instead of a neocon

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ON23pE0P1ro#t=25s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He looks like the villain from quantum of solace.

>Destroying Communist Shitholes
>Leftys: "OMG WTF HE IS A NEOCON"

>campaigns on "America first, no more foreign wars"
>half a year in and escalating military conflict with multiple countries

Wtf I love neocons now

And people were calling hilldawg a warmonger

Hellary wanted to start a war with Russia just for the emails thing, and now with Trump, looks like your country will do something to fix his govt, like electing taco sanders.

Unlike the middle east the US could probably do a regime change in those countries without having to occupy them and stay there to police the area for 10 years afterwards. The South Korean military/government would take care of most of the rebuilding of NK and Venezeuala is starving and on the brink of civil war anyway.

Communists should be persecuted and eradicated wherever they are.

THIS

I hope I drop a bomb and fall for the part of Colombia too

>>nuclear war with Korea

Drumpf is a slave of a kikes and everyone knows it

A cold war at worst

>Also implying our country will benefit from electing that crazy commie

Literally worse than hillary

I would have bombed them all months ago if it were my choice. MAGA and sage

Crisis in Venezuela? It's an internal crisis! How the fuck would any third nation justify any non requested involvement?
Just because you disagree with a foreign government's policy doesn't mean you have any right to attack it. How exactly does Venezuela's socialism threaten the world? The Venezuelans themselves are not being opressed anymore than people in other Latim American countries. Yes, they suffer gravely because of this crisis, but that doesn't give the USA or any other country the right to start war.
If the Venezuelan opposition can't get shit done, it's nobody's fault but their own. They receive millions from the USA for christ's sake. And when elections or referenda come they simply don't participate, meaning they basically give the victory to Maduro on a silver platter.

This cunt is same as Hillary.
You got tricked.

BUHHH BUT HER EMAILS

Everyone remember to submit your hours to get paid by next week!

We're having some issues with Reddit paylogs, so postpone your Reddit logs into the portal next week.

>Bombs Syria
Blew up one air base in Syria and has now withdrawn support from the rebels, thus de-facto ending the war. Exactly what we voted for him to do.

>Nuclear war with Korea
Disingenuous. North Korea fully intends to become nuclear-capable with the express intention of forcing their way into a more favorable situation. War with North Korea is not a matter of "if" but when, assuming they do not collapse. Right now collapse seems more likely than war, the Chinese have agreed to some pretty heavy sanctions, the Norks will probably fold within the next decade without us having to do anything. Acting as though this is the same as nation-building in fucking Afghanistan is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

>Venezuela
Not ruling something out is different from committing to it you imbecile. When you retards were saying that Trump was going to boots-on-the-ground invade Syria I said you were being hysterical and unrealistic. As usual I was right, and you were wrong.

Let's see whether I'm right and you're wrong again, this would be, what, the 150th time this electoral cycle? Your track record is worse than Nate Silver's but you think you're in a position to make an unqualified claim of certainty now?

Fucking brainlet.

Suuure

>How the fuck would any third nation justify any non requested involvement?
You got a socialist dictator that is starving a disarmed population and seizing property of foreign corporations. I could think of several ways to justify the ousting of Maduro.

Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam where/are all better for their countries then that idiot and the US didn't have any problem messing with them.

>escalating military conflict with multiple countries

Name one. Name a warzone in which Trump has actually escalated force instead of reducing it. Afghanistan had the MOAB, but that was one bomb blowing up a tunnel network that the CIA helped build, so that didn't escalate shit.

Syria has seen a DE-escalation since Trump got into office. A material deescalation. So Syria's out too.

Where is this fabled increase in militarism? North Korea hasn't had a shot fired yet so it isn't happening there, and Venezuela hasn't had a shot fired in it yet either, so it isn't happening there either.

I honestly don't understand you people. You're empirically wrong, yet you act as though it is a given that your baseless assertions are true. There is no escalation in ANY theater actually occurring, only threats and speculations. How is this a bad thing? If the government can cow Venezuela into shifting its policy, why shouldn't we do it? If we can finally end the eternal fucking albatross-carrying competition of the Korean Penninsula, why shouldn't we?

What I oppose--what everyone sensible opposes--is the nonstop continuation of stupid proxy wars for Israel in the Middle East. Trump has actually done that, how is it Neocon to let Obama's mercenary army in Syria be slaughtered? Explain this to me in detail, I'd love to hear it. To me it looks more like the hellish trainride is finally at an end and we might actually get some fucking peace in the Middle East for a few years.

And of course, this is true. And you know that it is true. You are not saying any of this because you believe it but because it suits your narrative to assert it as fact when it is manifestly false.

He bombed the Syrian army near Al Tanf several times. He took down a Syrian jet which was bombing ISIS.

He's not a dictator by any means.

>disarmed
So?

>seizing property of foreign corporations
Which is exactly why the Venezuelans elected Chavez/Maduro.

>Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam where/are all better for their countries then that idiot and the US didn't have any problem messing with them.
The US had no right to mess with them.

7 countries bombed, 1 Nobel peace prize.

What antotal war mongering cunt.

Ow wait, that was Obama wasn't it.

Trump hasn't done shit, keep up with the effort though kid, it's going to take a LOT more to change the minds of people over the age of 16.

>America first
You faggots still don't seem to understand what this means.

Minor things, nothing compared to abandoning the CIA's project of arming and equipping ISIS and Al-Nusra through the FSA.

With the strings cut the puppet has nowhere to go but down, Assad's government is literally guaranteed to win the war now. The game in Syria is over.

This is what I mean: Why point to these tiny caveats in the overall policy when the actual trajectory of the action overall is towards uninvolvement? They shot down a jet--okay, but they also openly abandoned the entire regime-change project. One of these things is a minor incident, the other is the end of the fucking war. Which is more important? Do you think Hillary Clinton would be pulling the CIA out of Syria? Of course not.

Trump is, as of now, objectively NOT pursuing neocon foreign policy, Mattis just likes killing people and got the Chair Force a few more migs painted on their planes on the war out of the theater.

>If the government can cow Venezuela into shifting its policy, why shouldn't we do it?
Why is it okay for the US to intimidate other countries into shifting their domestic policy so that US corporations can make more profit?

Isn't this whole Venezuela thing the same as what CNN accuses Russia of doing in the election?

The Whole World is Going to War Now

youtube.com/watch?v=ON23pE0P1ro#t=25s

You've had people from Venezuela on this very board telling you it's a shithole run by a communist. Why should Trump not remove a commie? This isn't the middle east where any alternative would be worse by default and rapefugees would be shipped to Europe.

That is a different conversation. If you want to discuss the moral implications of Venezuelan regime change, we can do that--that isn't what we're arguing here though. What we're arguing is the nonsensical claim that Trump's foreign policy reflects stereotypical Neocon aims, and what I am saying is that no, it obviously doesn't.

Venezuela's situation is also unenviable but there is no "good" option here. If we allow Venezuela to become a failed state (I am being generous by suggesting that it isn't one already) people will die, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands. If we can pressure Maduro to step down and allow himself to be replaced, at worst the status quo will continue and at best there might be some actual reform in the country.

I don't think I would condone actual military action but the situation is rapidly getting out of control and pressuring the V government to sort itself out is not an infringement of Westphalian principles, it's common sense.

I will mostly agree with you on this post. But to me he gives the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and he's making stuff up as he goes along. If he really wanted to pull out of Syria, then why shoot down the plane? Why bomb the Syrian soldiers who were marching towards the very same rebels he is now abandoning?

There are countless Americans who call Trump a fascist. Should Russia or China now push for regime change in the US?

>pressuring the V government to sort itself out
I doubt the US has this noble goal in mind. The US just wants a lackey in charge of Venezuela. They don't care about violence or chaos.

I agree that any involvement in Syria was too much, but I disagree that Trump is acting without aim or reason. It took months for Trump to build the political capital necessary to actually accomplish this end, and during those months he had to appease multiple factions who wanted the war to continue or escalate. Blowing up that air base, killing some SAA troops--these were distasteful, and probably decided upon by Mattis or the Joint Chiefs rather than Trump personally, but they were necessary to maintain the appearance of a hard stance on Assad's Syria.
The trajectory however is clear, and looks very positive to me.

As regards Venezuela, of course the motive is not beneficent, but nothing the government does ever is, it is pragmatic. That does not mean that the results would not, at least in this instance, be benign or possibly even positive. I'm not going to blackpill over something like this, and I don't think anyone should until such a time as actual unprovoked hostilities break out.

This needs to be updated

> foreign dictator is uppity
> tell him you gonna bomb him
> he backs down

Art of the deal

The motive isn't the point here, it's that the result, i.e implementing someone else to rule Venezuela would unlike the Middle East, most likely improve the place. Maduro has made no bones about jailing the opposition, opening fire on protesters and his retarded economics are the reason they can't even feed their elephants in the zoo let alone their people.

Itt: mental gymnastics

This Tbh

Not a fucking argument. Open your mouth and make one so that I can smack it shut for you.