President Trump Infidelity To Allies Drives Jim Mattis To Resign In Protest

Which allies Ron?

Take a complete look at this video report and then come back, OK!!!

I watched it last night Ron.

You do know what "Infidelity" means don't you? Then since you watched this report last night, don't you?

How did you like Jim's resignation letter?

I don't know who Mattis is talking about when he say "allies" or "malign actors" or "strategic competitors" (the only words left out by Rachel twice though she read all the other words). Obviously Trump would know but I don't and Rachel doesn't. And you just parrot anything Rachel says, and LIE and say that the answers are in the video when they're not, so you're no help.

This story is not about our allies but the reactions of what Trump has done by his recent actions. Stay focus on the issue because you have not seen this kind of action from a U.S. president ever in the history of this country and the sad part of it is, that you act like you don't see it or don't want to believe what is unfolding before your very eyes.

Who do you think that Trump is pulling our troops from in The Mideast which is covered in this report Steve?

"Who do you think that Trump is pulling our troops from"

Who?

It is all in this report.

This question makes no sense Ron. What are you trying to say?

"Who do you think that Trump is pulling our troops from in The Mideast which is covered in this report Steve?"

You said "This story is not about our allies" so who does "who" mean?

YOUR QUESTION: You said "This story is not about our allies" so who does "who" mean?

MY REPLY: Have you heard of Jim Mattis and what he did in this report?

Let's say "who" means some ally. There are no allies specified in this video Ron, regardless what your title and you say.

Bottom line Ron, there is no way you can POSSIBLY know why Mattis resigned.

Maybe Mattis doesn't consider Turkey an ally.

BOTH OF YOUR STATEMENTS: Let's say "who" means some ally. There are no allies specified in this video Ron, regardless what your title and you say. Bottom line Ron, there is no way you can POSSIBLY know why Mattis resigned.


MY QUESTION AND REPLY: Did you not start a blog featuring Jim Mattis resignation letter on Black In America Steve?

No, I will answer that question, YES YOU DID and here it is: Here is the full text of Mattis’ resignation letter, as released by the Defense Department http://blackinamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi... Posted By: Steve Williams Friday, December 21st 2018 at 11:30AM which people on Black In America read to the tune of 32 hits at this time..

Also

If you saw this report video, Which you said this: "I watched it last night Ron." Friday, December 21st 2018 at 11:25PM. Steve, Jim Mattis complete resignation letter, was read to you and was given not one but TWO reasons why Jim Mattis quit the Trump administration in both accounts and you still don't know? WOW!!!

Let me ask you this quick question Steve, do you read what you copy and paste and then post on a blog here on Black In America for the people to read with understanding? Because if you did, why would you make this statement: "Bottom line Ron, there is no way you can POSSIBLY know why Mattis resigned" when that information is found in your posting and in this video report that you claimed, you saw?

There are THREE reasons he gave Ron and that's not all of it. Which you can't possibly know since you are NEITHER Mattis NOR Trump.

What about Turkey Ron? Is Turkey an ally, a malign actor, or a strategic competitor?

YOUR REPLY: There are THREE reasons he gave Ron and that's not all of it.

QUICK QUESTION: What was all three reason given in Mattis resignation letter, since you now know the answer to your own question?

I've known the answer ever since I watched Rachel last Thursday. It's actually ONE reason in THREE persons. ALLIES, MALIGN ACTORS, and STRATEGIC COMPETITORS. He named RUSSIA and CHINA as examples of "strategic competitors".

YOUR REPLY: It's actually ONE reason in THREE persons. ALLIES, MALIGN ACTORS, and STRATEGIC COMPETITORS. He named RUSSIA and CHINA as examples of "strategic competitors".


MY REPLY: Those are not the why Jim Mattis Quit the Trump Administration at all Steve. There is no lack of clarity here. This was a resignation in protest against The President and his behavior in my opinion. To use Jim Mattis words from his very on resignation letter, was this: "My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actions.

This is what Mattis told Trump he would step down during a white House meeting Thursday afternoon Steve.

I don't where you got this BULL💩 from for a reason why he would quit the Trump administration: STRATEGIC COMPETITORS He named RUSSIA and CHINA as examples of "strategic competitors".

Jim Mattis dedicated his life to defend his against STRATEGIC COMPETITORS like RUSSIA and CHINA that are our enemies but of course you, would not know anything about that.

YOUR REPLY: It's actually ONE reason in THREE persons. ALLIES, MALIGN ACTORS, and STRATEGIC COMPETITORS. He named RUSSIA and CHINA as examples of "strategic competitors".


MY REPLY: Those are not the why Jim Mattis Quit the Trump Administration at all Steve. There is no lack of clarity here. This was a resignation in protest against The President of The United States of America and his behavior in my opinion. To use Jim Mattis words from his very own resignation letter, was this: "My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actions.

This is what Mattis told Trump he would step down during a white House meeting Thursday afternoon Steve.

I don't know where you got this BULL💩 from for a reason why he would quit the Trump administration: STRATEGIC COMPETITORS He named RUSSIA and CHINA as examples of "strategic competitors".

Jim Mattis dedicated his life to defend his against STRATEGIC COMPETITORS like RUSSIA and CHINA that are our enemies but of course you, would not know anything about that.

Mattis's views were not the same as Trump's so he quit. You are the one who fictionalized it into a "protest", as if it were done for you. Check out the big head on Ron!

Those are the FACTS. Now look at what Trump has done simply because Trumps feelings got hart by Jim Mattis, have you seen the lastest new on this subject Steve?

Of course I've seen it Ron. Do you think Trump should have kept Mattis on? Of course you do.

At least until Trump could find a confirmed replacement. Trumps feeling was hurt, WOW!!! Don't his replacement have any middle east or military experience for the JOB?

The reason why I asked because all the people who did have any experience for the JOB is now GONE.

You hated ALL those people Ron. No, there is no reason to keep a subordinate that has decided they don't want the job. Mattis and the State Dept. guy were going to attend a coalition meeting in February. Shanahan is already Senate confirmed and having him take over immediately is the way to do it.

Steve, I don't hate nobody, not even you because I can't afford it. My interest is for the free flow and the running of this country and not because of the hurt feelings of Trump and Putin is laughing at us all.

Sure Ron. I don't believe you.

Then REFUTE it, if you can. Just look at the history of Putin and you will see that his government is not in such of a disarray as this is. Go ahead, take that look and tell us what you found out about Putin.

If you loved Putin, then what would your history of Putin be Ron?

YOUR QUESTION: If you loved Putin, then what would your history of Putin be Ron?

MY REPLY: I DON'T!!! My Love is for The United States of America, bottom Line.

Did you look into the history history toward the U.S. Yet?

If I wanted to study Russian history I would first learn the Russian language. I think you are a professional at self deceit Ron.

You don't have to understand Russian to see the distain, history and the attitude that Putin has for democracy towards the U.S. and the World. That history is written in English so you and people like you can understand who Putin is. I did not ask you study Russian history Steve, just the history of Putin's history towards U.S. democracy.

Don't try to twist what I said, trying to use those tricks of the heathens, it will not work.

So your English Russian historians, did they study the Russian language Ron?

Do you have more to say on this subject of Jim Mattis Resigning In Protest from the Trump administration, Steve or is that all you got?

I'm still waiting to find out which allies but you don't know.

One of our allies that fought and died helping the U.S. in the Middle East against our enemy ISIS are THE KURDS. How soon do you forget 911. WHAT A MAROON.

Tell me about the Kurds Ron.

Those are just one of our allies that came to mind but we America’s have allies-from Europe to East Asia to the Persian Gulf-are potentially an important that Trump is at odds with.

I'm only interested in the Kurds Ron. Turkey didn't like it we armed them. Turkey is a NATO ally so why did we go against their interests to arm their opposition? Was that any way to treat an ally?

YOUR QUESTION: Turkey didn't like it we armed them. Turkey is a NATO ally so why did we go against their interests to arm their opposition?

MY REPLY: This must have went right over your head: One of our allies that fought and died helping the U.S. in the Middle East against our enemy ISIS are THE KURDS. How soon do you forget 911.

Their are diplomatic way to ensure that Turkey will not wage war on the Kurds but that type of leadership was not extended by Trump at all, which turned out to be a gift to Putin and Turkey. The real question is WHY DID TRUMP DO THAT?

The question is: Is Turkey our ally?

In June, the two NATO allies had agreed to a plan that would see the YPG exit from Manbij, but Ankara has complained that the timeline for this has been delayed too long.

https://m.dw.com/en/turkey-massing-troops-...

Turkey is our Nato ally. It is a “priority market” for our arms exports. NATO and the U.S. are to different subjects.

Whatever "NATO and the U.S. are two different subjects" means.

The U.S. was in Turkey to keep our commitment to the THE KURDS.

Where can I find out just what this commitment to the Kurds is?

Kurdish Agreement Signals New U.S. Commitment https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy...

Moments in U.S. Diplomatic History https://adst.org/2013/07/a-secret-betrayal...

The defeat of ISIS in Raqqa tests U.S. commitment to Syrian Kurds https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middl...

I can go with more quotes where you can find out just what this commitment to the Kurds is but from these three links, you can get a damn good look at the commitment from the U.S. with the Kurds.

Enjoy the read Steve.

Your first link Ron is from 1998 about "an agreement between two long-feuding Iraqi Kurdish leaders".

From the second we have news about the Shah of Iran. Very timely Ron.

The Kurds had agreed to resume their war for autonomy against the Iraqi Government with support from the Shah of Iran, but they did not really trust that the Shah would continue to provide his support. As it turns out, there concern was well-founded. So they sought the assurance of the United States Government that we would, in effect, guarantee that the Shah would continue to support them and that we would throw in a little support of our own.

And the third link wants me to pay them $1. Fat chance.

Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News found great significance in Jeffrey’s assessment of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led alliance of anti-ISIS fighters:

The U.S.’s relationship with the SDF is “tactical” and “transactional,” Jeffrey said in a speech at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think-tank on Dec. 17.

“We don’t have permanent relations with sub-state entities,” he said, adding the U.S. supported the SDF with the specific goal of fighting against ISIL.

The SDF is dominated by the YPG, which Ankara considers as the Syrian extension of the PKK, which is listed as terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S. and the EU.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-securit...