Jump to content

Trump foreign policy


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Dude, my job was to kick in doors, and call for fire. You know that. 

 

What I find laughable is your focus on the higher echelons. As would most grunts. Them folks ain’t warriors. 

 

Those ***** there don’t know how to conduct battle drills or clear rooms. 

 

Its not that theyre not important, they’re needed. But they’d all get themselves killed doing grunt things. 

 

Your focus seems to be on the people people who wrote doctrine. Guys like me throw out their doctrine and do what works. 

 

And if you’re asking if I could coordinate large scale movements and things of the sort, clearly not. But, ironically, the folks who can couldn’t move a 4-man stack. 

 

Yeah, you don't know ***** about warfare.  You know about fighting.  Those are not the same thing.  That you think they are the same thing shows how incredibly ignorant you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Yeah, you don't know ***** about warfare.  You know about fighting.  Those are not the same thing.  That you think they are the same thing shows how incredibly ignorant you are.

 

That was the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever read. 

 

You are a complete moron. 

 

Youre the type of guy that gets impressed by Clausewitz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The battle with China continues to be an interesting one to watch. Encouraging that some of the smaller nations are starting to push with the US against China. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-divisions-exposed-after-one-phrase-torpedoed-pacific-accord-1542543774?mod=hp_lead_pos3

Quote

 

For the first time in the summit’s 29-year history, officials ended two days of meetings without issuing a communiqué, with Papua New Guinea’s leader delivering only his summary of failed talks. “You all know who the two big giants in the room were, so what can I say,” Prime Minister Peter O’Neill told reporters.

 

A senior Trump administration official said Sunday that the dispute largely came down to a single proposed sentence: “We agreed to fight protectionism including all unfair trade practices.”

 

China wouldn’t agree to that language, believing it amounted to a “singling out” of Chinese trade practices [no sh!t Sherlock], the U.S. official said. All other 20 APEC nations favored including the language in the final communiqué, the official said.

 

It wasn’t “China vs. the U.S. that torpedoed the leaders’ statement,” so much as it was “China versus all the other members of APEC,” the official said.

On Saturday, China’s President Xi Jinping clashed with the U.S. over trade and security, calling on officials to “reject arrogance and prejudice,” as Beijing and Washington vie for global influence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...