04-18-2017, 10:07 AM
(04-17-2017, 10:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He was against it at first, but then he told Obama not to seek congressional approval because Syria would know that it's coming.
Trump also said he was against sending troops into Syria, which he didn't do when we just bombed them.
The symbolic red line where you say "cross this and we'll take action."
And the action is Trump sent the carrier into South China Sea and is telling North Korea that they're playing with fire and he has been preparing/considering a strike if they keep acting a fool.
Maybe they were becoming more of a threat?
What's the difference? I think you're arguing this point just to argue because he took action where it needed to be taken.
Maybe or maybe he has come to the conclusion that they're not. Good leaders adapt positions when need-be or when new information is known.
When did I EVER say that?
He's listening to the people around him and changing with what needs to be done. If he kept doing things that didn't need to be done or were wrong, you'd be bitching at him for that.
Good leaders adapt to what needs to be done, so why are you hating him for it?
Realizing (or admitting) NATO isn't obsolete and He needs China for political and strategic reasons isn't great leadership, it's recognizing reality. Basically, He pulled His head out of His ass. Props for that, but not being an idiot is hardly praise worthy.
He flipped on Syria from one extreme to another when faced with the same situation. His opinion seems to be based upon inconsistencies rather than evidence based decision making. What's worse is His inconsistency affects policy which resulted in the use of military force which violated the same UN resolution He attacked Syria for violating at the risk of escalating an already volatile situation.
