Its estimated by various news sources that the US dropped over 20,000 bombs in 2016 alone. We have Military personnel in 130 countries and the use of drone strikes has skyrocketed in the Obama years. Where Bush preferred troops on the ground, Obama shifted to a drone strike and more personnel for targeted strikes, bombs and more covert activities. Trump's policy seems to be one of be very strong but only strike when it directly affects American's. He's probably the most protectionist, non-hawkish Republican in ages which as a small government, lower taxes and less wars made him my choice to lead. Mattis ideology seems to be don't fight unless you're willing to go all the way and win. 20,000 bombs dropped in a year is just terrible and disgusting. Whether Bush or Obama, these Washington war mongerers in these uncertain wars needs to stop. Better to send 100,000 troops and decisively win a battle we much fight, than drop bombs every 30 minutes someplace in the world. Cheers to hoping we can end this under Trump as it sure wasn't under Bush and Obama.
Trump "even suggested to [Peña Nieto] that if they are incapable of combatting [narco trafficking] he may have to send troops to assume this task," she said. http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ico-phone-call-humiliating-threatening-2017-2
Bad news: war is awesome business. After you drop those 20,000 bombs . . . you gotta buy 20,000 more bombs, from your pals, using taxpayer money! (Yes, yours and mine!) And then, you hire American contractors (your buddies) to rebuild the buildings and bridges you blew up, using taxpayer money! (Yes, yours and mine!). PLUS! You can go grab the property of all the people you just killed (cf. Trump: "We should have taken the oil.") Blowing up people is triple plus good for business! Wrap a benjamin around ur D and have at it, business dudes!
I guess we have done both over the past 16 years. Iraq. Decisive victory by all initial measures. Then unbelievable failure by all counts. Life, property and treasure impact for decades. Long term impact - devastating. Drone-mageddon (not; US dropped at least 250M bombs in Vietnam and those aren't anywhere close to accuracy of today drone). Relative to Iraq war - very little life, property and treasure impact.
This seems to suggest a serious lack of understanding of the different circumstances these are used in. Do you think the US decisively won wars in Afghanistan or Iraq with ground troops? Do you think ground troops are effective for surgical strikes? Do you think bombs are effective for overthrowing governments?
It's always better to have American troops there to die, when drone strikes can accomplish goals without risk to American troops. What happened to supporting the troops?
"Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. You've made it neat and painless. So neat and painless you've had no reason to stop it. And you've had it for over five hundred years. Since it seems to be the only way I can save my crew and my ship, I'm going to end it for you, one way or another." - Kirk, to Anan 7 (TOS: "A Taste of Armageddon") Rocket River
This was pretty funny. Better to send 100,00 troops into battle, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, get thousands of troops killed, not to mention all of the innocent people that are inevitably killed in large scale invasions than to specifically target terrorists with drones. I look forward to comparing the records of war monger Obama with peaceknik Trump.
