Reblog: Tough Talk from our President?

More than once, this guy has put my thoughts into words … and he does it extremely well.

Ends and Beginnings

“North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.” – Donald Trump tweet 4-11-17

According to Donald Trump’s son Eric, the President ordered the launch of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base in large part because his daughter Ivanka was “heartbroken and outraged” by the images of children being “sprayed down by hoses to keep their skin from burning.” Certainly I agree, as a father nothing is more difficult to view than pictures of children that have been harmed in any way.

But how about the pictures of thousands upon thousands of children behind fences in refugee camps. Or the video of children trudging through a wasteland of sand trying to find a home beyond the range of bullets and bombs. Why don’t those images tug at Ivanka’s heartstrings? Trump’s 59 cruise missiles were…

View original post 583 more words

Advertisements

Trump and Those Nasty Terrorists

I admit, I’m not all that familiar with the “military operations” conducted by the U.S. and/or other countries. But from what I’ve read and heard, I do have grave misgivings about our (I’m Like A Smart Person) Orange Leader and his declarations about how HE is going to rid the world of “Radical Islamic Terrorists.”

An example (to me) of his inexperienced and reckless actions was his recent decision to deploy hundreds of U.S. marines in Northern Syria. According to this article in The Guardian,  his decision is “high risk foolishness.” It points out that tRump is putting …

relatively inexperienced American soldiers into the middle of a highly toxic, multi-fronted battlefield that includes combat-tested Kurdish militias, Syrian army troops, anti-regime fighters and Russian, Iranian and Turkish forces.

It further points out that this …

simplistic idea, promulgated by Trump, that Isis and its warped jihadi ideology can be annihilated by force is foolish and naive.

The article concludes:

Trump’s Syrian intervention is “fraught with risk”, Robert Ford, former US ambassador to Damascus, told the Washington Post. “It is a huge policy change.” The potential for military escalation or “mission creep”, if and when US ground troops get into trouble, is obvious, vast and worrying. Northern Syria is a quagmire. Trump just jumped straight in.

Quite frankly, any decisions this man makes related to military actions worries me greatly. His stance related to No. Korea and its nuclear aspirations is another example. And his “friendliness” with Russia is disconcerting as well.

Unfortunately, it is what it is (at least for the time being). I guess all we can hope for is no foreign power ever questions his education, how strong he is, what a winner he is, how tough he is, his tremendous successes, how amazing he is, what a terrific job he’s doing, his leadership abilities, or his ability to build classy buildings … (taken from “Donald Trump’s 20 Most Frequently Used Words“). Otherwise, we’d better duck and cover and hope we live to see another day.

Kill ‘Em All!

Just read this in an article at AmericanThinker.com … and it chills my bones:

America is in a generational struggle against the sick, pathological and extreme ideology of Islam, and America must show no mercy for the merciless Islamic State, which seeks the “breaking of the American [Christian] cross” and the fulfillment of Islamic prophecy. We must unleash the full fury and might of the U.S. military on the Islamic State and annihilate these animals who would end our U.S. Republic, democratic elections and religious freedom, leaving only Sharia law. And, we must fight to victory or condemn future generations to a perpetual state of war, or worse.

I don’t think any of us want to be in a “perpetual state of war,” but is unleashing the “full fury and might of the U.S. military on the Islamic State” the answer? Does this writer think we can just walk in and blow the smithereens out of the countries that support terrorism and walk away unscathed?

I recognize that diplomatic reasoning doesn’t seem to be working, but it turns my stomach when the writer says we should “annihilate these animals.” If the U.S. were to follow his strategy, not only the “animals” would be annihilated, but thousands of innocent people as well.

I admit I don’t know the answer to the global situation that is facing the U.S. (and other countries), but there must be a better way than the venomous and vicious plan offered by this writer.

Thoughts?