It’s been a tough year for the military in the United States.
There are a lot of bad news stories out there, but one thing the military has been especially hard hit by is the ongoing war on the military.
In an effort to combat the rising threat of the Islamic State, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on over a dozen countries, including some allies.
And while this has been a boon for the U:nualist military, the sanctions have not been without their cost: The United States has been forced to pay out a total of $2.4 trillion in military aid since 2011.
As a result, the cost to the American taxpayer of U.s military aid has more than tripled in the last ten years.
The U.nualists response to the rise of ISIS has been to go after the military directly, in particular the Army.
And so, the United Nations and its partners have been pressuring the Trump administration to impose sanctions on the country, which has been doing exactly that.
Now, this week, the Trump Administration has been faced with a stark choice: Accept the harsh sanctions imposed on the United states military, or put the country back on track and help rebuild the military that has been crippled by sanctions.
This is a choice that will have major consequences for U. s foreign policy.
As it happens, the decision was made this week in the face of overwhelming opposition to the sanctions.
The vote was unanimous, with six Democrats voting for the sanctions and six Republicans voting against.
But what does this all mean for the future of the U, as well as for the country at large?
What exactly is the United Sates response to ISIS?
And how does this situation fit into the broader war on terrorism?
To start, it’s worth looking at what the Trump regime has been up to.
In December, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which essentially suspended all military aid to nations that did not cooperate with the United Kingdom and France in the Syrian civil war, and imposed sanctions against more than 40 countries.
This has caused an uproar, not just among U. nits own military but among allies and the broader international community.
This was the result of the White House finding itself at odds with allies in the European Union over how to handle Russia’s intervention in Syria.
And this was also a reaction to the emergence of a new threat that was being dubbed the Islamic STATE (ISIL).
The White House argued that the group is “a threat to international peace and security and the United State and its allies should be prepared to defend ourselves.”
And so it was the United Arab Emirates that was the first country to sign on to this initiative.
The Emirates had been an ally of the United U. S. in the Gulf for decades.
And as the UAE became more involved in the war in Syria, it became increasingly concerned about the rise and influence of ISIL.
In January 2018, it declared that it had decided to join the coalition fighting ISIL.
It was also clear that the United Saudis had also begun to take a hard line against ISIL.
And just as the United Saudi Arabia joined the coalition, the Emirates announced its intention to withdraw from the U S.-led coalition.
The U.N. Security Council’s Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, a resolution calling on the international community to take immediate steps to rein in the rising influence of the extremist group.
And it went further than other resolutions to call on the governments of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE to support the coalition against ISIL, and to end the funding of extremist groups.
The resolution also called on the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council to take the necessary measures to isolate ISIL, including by establishing safe havens for the organization, establishing a no-fly zone and a safe zone-free zone, and imposing a no travel zone.
It was a resolution that went beyond the traditional threats of the Middle East.
It targeted a group that was already being used by the international coalition against the Assad regime.
And the UAE, along with the other countries, were very much aware that this was coming, and they wanted to be ready to join this fight.
The United Arab Emirate was also concerned about Russia’s role in Syria: They had made it clear that they would oppose any military intervention against Russia.
But as the crisis in Syria has escalated, this position has shifted.
And this shift in position, along the lines of the previous resolutions, has been reflected in a number of actions that the US. is taking.
On the day after the resolution was adopted, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the meeting to discuss the U s military options against ISIL and expressed his concerns.
He said, We have a choice.
We can go forward with the sanctions, or we can go back to the negotiation table and find a way to resolve this.
And then, two days later, the president