Thread: Trump gives Putin an 'A' on leadership

What exactly has he gotten us out of?

The Middle East.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Middle East.

Huh???? What in the world are you talking about? Sorry dear, Trump doesn't wield that kind of power. Maybe he will someday, but that day isn't here yet.

Yeah, he actually does. A few weeks ago at the Second Debate, Trump was asked what he thought of Putin, and he answered he thought he and Putin would get along well. Then a few days after that he was asked about Russia going into Syria, and Trump said, let Russia handle Syria.

Then, Putin comes to the US and goes to the UN and makes his speech about Russia going into Syria to support Assad to fight ISIS.

On Sixty Minutes, Scott Pelley asks Trump about Russia and Syria, and Trumps say, let Russia handle it. Pelley says but that would put the Russians in Syria and Trump says "what the hell do we care?".

Tonight, O'Reilly asks Trump about Russia and Syria and Trump says, let Russia handle Syria. And O'Reilly says but that would put Russia in charge of Syria, and Trump says that fine. And O'Reilly says how is that fine and Trump asks O'Reilly, do you want to own Syria, do you want to run Syria? And O'Reilly says "oh no", and Trump says well then, it's fine, let Russia handle Syria. Then O'Reilly says but Russia is an ally of Iran and Trump says, yeah, and O'Reilly says well what about that and Trump says what about it, you know Iran and Iraq are going to merge, they're already working on it and O'Reilly says then Russia will control all the oil in the Middle East and Trump says, yeah, so, that's fine.

What most Americans apparently don't know is that Russia was always our friend, our ally, until they became afraid of US. They were never interested in having US as their enemy, they always wanted to be our friend and ally. But, they saw our missile build up pointed at them, and so they built up to protect against US. The reason they wanted missile bases on Cuba was so if we ever did anything to them they could fight US from Cuba instead of on their soil.

We've had stupid people in charge of our government for a very long time. It's time to start electing smart people who before we commit trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and limbs to war, who ask "why in the hell do we care"?

And there's only 1 candidate in the race for President who has asked that question, that all important question which put another way is "what is the national security interest of the United States", is Donald J Trump.

Russia is the country with the national security interest in the Middle East, so close to their borders, in their hemisphere, on their continent. It's there problem to solve and they know how to solve it. It's not our problem and we can't solve it, or we would have.

Putin turned to Obama in his speech at the United Nations and said "look what you have done". And it's true. We've created total chaos in the Middle East for no valid reason at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...ttle-downside/

CLICK ON LINK FOR VIDEO

Trump on Putin Controlling Syria: ‘OK, Fine,’ Him Fighting ISIS ‘Wonderful Thing,’ ‘Very Little Downside’

by Ian Hanchett29 Sep 2015

On Tuesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that it’s “a wonderful thing” Russia’s Vladimir Putin is fighting ISIS and responded “Alright, okay, fine” after host Bill O’Reilly stated Putin would “never get out” of Syria.

Trump said [relevant exchange begins around 3:55] of “in terms of leadership, he’s getting an A, and our president is not doing so well.”

When asked what he thinks Putin is doing in the Middle East, Trump stated, “Well, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, wounded warriors all over, and Putin is now taking over what we started, and he’s going into Syria, and he frankly wants to fight ISIS, and I think that’s a wonderful thing. You know, I said that a year ago and everybody said oh, that’s terrible. If he wants to fight ISIS, let him fight ISIS. Why do we always have to do everything. But he wants to go in. He wants to fight ISIS. Now, he wants to keep, as you know, he wants to keep your leadership, your current leadership, Assad in Syria. Personally I’ve been looking at the different players, and I’ve been watching Assad, and I’ve been pretty good at this stuff over the years, cause deals are people. And I’m looking at Assad and saying, ‘Maybe he’s better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.’ Because we don’t even know who we’re backing.”

Trump added that there’s “very little downside with Putin fighting ISIS, and Putin wants to keep ISIS out of Russia and, therefore, he’s become very active with respect to ISIS, and I think that’s to our benefit.”

O’Reilly stated, “Once Putin gets in and fights ISIS on behalf of Assad, Putin runs Syria. He owns it. He’ll never get out, never.” Trump said, “Alright, okay, fine. I mean, you know, we can be in Syria. Do you want to run Syria? Do you want to own Syria? I want to rebuild our country.”

Trump concluded, by agreeing with O’Reilly that Putin wants to run the Middle East, adding “you have huge oil reserves. You have huge — you have tremendous wealth in the Middle East that people don’t even know about. And by the way, forget about Putin. You have Iran is going to take over Iraq. I called that many years ago, on your show. I said we should have never gone into Iraq, which I should be given a little credit for vision, because I’m the only one running that said that, but we should have never, because you totally destabilize the Middle East. But the fact is that Putin now — well, that’s what happened. you destabilized, and by the way. Iran is going to be be taking over Iraq, including their vast oil reserves, and the leftovers are taken over by ISIS. So, what have we done with our incompetent leadership?”

After O’Reilly stated, “We have given the Middle East primarily to Putin and Iran, and they will run it for the foreseeable future.” Trump responded, “I believe that’s true.”

Click on link above for video of this segment of the interview.

Why the west should listen to Putin on Syria

Simon Jenkins
Tuesday 29 September 2015 05.18 EDT
Last modified on Tuesday 29 September 2015 13.14 EDT

The result of American and British grandstanding at the UN this week – seeing who can be ruder about Assad – is that Vladimir Putin has gathered ever more cards to his pack.

Putin is right. Everyone knows Putin is right, that the only way forward in Syria, if not to eternal slaughter, is via the established government of Bashar al-Assad and his Lebanese and Iranian allies.

That is the realpolitik. That is what pragmatism dictates. In the secure west, foreign policy has long been a branch of domestic politics, with added sermonising. “What to do”, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, even Ukraine, has been dictated not by what might work but what looks good. The megaphone is mightier than the brain.

The result of American and British grandstanding at the UN this week – seeing who can be ruder about Assad – is that Vladimir Putin has gathered ever more cards to his pack. Putin has already performed the two primary duties of a Russian leader, bringing stability and pride. He now faces turbulent Russian minorities across his European frontier and a serious menace from Muslim states to his south. He is perforce becoming a player on a wider stage. He has read Iran, India and Syria correctly. He is no fool.

On a visit to London last June, the veteran diplomat Henry Kissinger pleaded with his audience to see Russia as an ally, not an enemy, against Muslim fundamentalism. Russia and the west shared a civilisation and long-term interests, he said. They had to work as one. It is easy for western democracies, centuries in the making, to sneer at Russia’s imperfections and at Putin’s cynical antics in Ukraine. But the idea that economic sanctions were going to change Moscow’s mind or weaken its kleptocracy was idiotic.

Syria is experiencing the most ghastly anarchy anywhere on earth. If ever there were a case for humanitarian “troops on the ground” it must be here. Those who seek this end cannot pick and choose their merchants of atrocity. All sides in war kill innocent people, including western addicts of air bombing (such as Hilary Benn at the Labour party conference yesterday). Russia has accepted that the forcible toppling of Assad – which Britain has predicted since 2011 – is not a realistic path to peace. If he is to go, it will be after his enemies have been driven back, not before.

The true nature of the west’s commitment in Syria was revealed in Barack Obama’s remark to the UN that “because alternatives are surely worse” is no reason to support tyrants. In other words, American feelgood is more important than Syrian lives. That cosy maxim has guided western policy in the region for over a decade. It has been a disaster. If we have nothing more intelligent to say on Syria, we should listen to Putin. He has.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...syria-us-assad

Judy wrote:

What most Americans apparently don't know is that Russia was always our friend, our ally, until they became afraid of US. They were never interested in having US as their enemy, they always wanted to be our friend and ally. But, they saw our missile build up pointed at them, and so they built up to protect against US. The reason they wanted missile bases on Cuba was so if we ever did anything to them they could fight US from Cuba instead of on their soil.

For lack of a better word, HOGWASH!

The Russian's put missiles in Cuba for two primary reasons: (1) to boost their power, threatening the U.S. with nuclear attack from the Caribbean and (2) to increase their bargaining position in its attempts to force West Berlin to join East Germany. Additional reasons included defending Cuba from American invasion and bolstering Soviet prestige.

There may have been times during the 90's when a large portion of the Russian population viewed the United States in a positive light, but I don't think the Russian government shared those views. From what I gather we are now considered Russia's #1 global enemy.

No, it isn't hogwash. It's fact. We are not and have never been an enemy of Russia, except in the minds of people who were uneducated on the facts, which I have to admit include a great deal of Americans. In order to support the spending on the nuclear missile program, our government needed to depict them as an enemy to justify the funding.