Trump on Afghanistan: Decisions are different when you're president

[NYcarbineer]

As long as you're butthurt about his policy I'm good.

I'm sure that when we are butthurt about more American casualties, you'll be good about that too.

These people think war is something you get from a Call of Duty dvd.

 

[bodecea]

As long as you're butthurt about his policy I'm good.

I'm not butthurt about it. I think it's funny as hell - and unbelievably HYPOCRITICAL. BTW, Bannon and Breitbart are butthurt about it.

Breitbart News Network

The fuck you aren't. You're butthurt because Trump got elected.

You're butthurt he surrounded himself with four star Marine Generals who crafted his strategy.

You're butthurt the border is becoming secure.

You're butthurt he called China out on trade and North Korea.

You're butthurt he has the economy revving up.

You're butthurt about everything he does.

His success and America's exceptionalism is your worst nightmare.

And so am I. I'll call you libtarded lunatics every time when you promote anything other than America's success.

Your Messiah never gave one comment without a teleprompter without sounding as stupid as you.

Obama Obama Obama.....can't address your so-called president's decision, can you?

 

[Ted Frazier]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

Even his base didn't like it. Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech

 

[Correll]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

I'm not real happy with it.

Afghanistan isn't like Germany, where the situation eventually became a crushy peace time posting.


It will always be a third world hellhole and spending American lives and gold to make it slightly less of a hellhole is not something we should be doing long term.



But I thought that one of the left's complaints about Trump was that he didn't listen to anyone else.


So, where is your relief and happiness that you were wrong about that?

The cult flip flop is fun to watch.

HOw did I flip, or are you just talking smack?

 

[Correll]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

I actually applaud the President on listening to the Generals and trying to do the right thing.

But after 16 years it appears the same. We pull back, they fill the void. We rush back in and they pull back. We have to get out of there sometime

This "secret strategy" stuff seems kinda dopey. They know how many troops are there and what they are doing

They live there

Wow. I just slammed lakosha about not being happy to see Trump listening to advice.


Good for you, this is the RW that we used to have.

He claimed he had advisors during the campaign. They were telling him to get out! of Afghanistan??????

Your post, had absolutely NOTHING to do with my post that you were responding to.

 

[Correll]

As long as you're butthurt about his policy I'm good.

I'm sure that when we are butthurt about more American casualties, you'll be good about that too.

The op discusses how this is the same as Obama's strategy.

Were you butthurt about American casualties then?

 

[Correll]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

Even his base didn't like it. Trump’s ‘America First’ Base Unhappy with Flip-Flop Afghanistan Speech

Kind of undermines that mindless follower bullshit the left has been pushing.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

 

[Correll]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

Regime change in PAKISTAN?!


Which not only has a population of literally FIVE times that of Afghanistan, but also nuclear weapons?


You are talking WWII level of warfare.


Except against an enemy that does not understand surrender.

 

[rightwinger]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

 

[rightwinger]

Obama screwed up Afghanistan by not not listening to the military, changing the rules of engagement and trying to do that silly nation building bullshit that has always failed. All he did with his escalation was get Americans killed. The stupid affirmative action nitwit never even had an objective for the war.

Looks like Trump is on a path to fix all the things that Obama broke. It is good to have a competent Commander in Chief now instead of a worthless dumbass isn't it?

Bush screwed up Afghanistan by abandoning the war on terror for a disasterous invasion of Iraq

 

[rightwinger]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

I actually applaud the President on listening to the Generals and trying to do the right thing.

But after 16 years it appears the same. We pull back, they fill the void. We rush back in and they pull back. We have to get out of there sometime

This "secret strategy" stuff seems kinda dopey. They know how many troops are there and what they are doing

They live there

Wow. I just slammed lakosha about not being happy to see Trump listening to advice.


Good for you, this is the RW that we used to have.

I am willing to cut our President some slack and see what happens

I was glad he was not ordering combat troops

However I believe no president is capable of "fixing" Afghanistan

 

[Correll]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

I actually applaud the President on listening to the Generals and trying to do the right thing.

But after 16 years it appears the same. We pull back, they fill the void. We rush back in and they pull back. We have to get out of there sometime

This "secret strategy" stuff seems kinda dopey. They know how many troops are there and what they are doing

They live there

Wow. I just slammed lakosha about not being happy to see Trump listening to advice.


Good for you, this is the RW that we used to have.

I am willing to cut our President some slack and see what happens

I was glad he was not ordering combat troops

However I believe no president is capable of "fixing" Afghanistan

I agree.


We cannot fix the Middle East. We can keep ourselves separate and safe.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump initially planned to pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan, he said Monday, but his top advisers, including several military generals, changed his mind. “My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

Trump was convinced by his advisers that withdrawing from Afghanistan would leave a vacuum that would allow groups like the Taliban, ISIS and al Qaeda to prosper. Senior administration officials told reporters that the president’s new plan entailed sending approximately 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which would bring the total presence past 12,000, but Trump did not confirm troop numbers nor whether they would serve in an advisory or combat role.

More: Trump’s Vague New Afghanistan Strategy Continues An Endless War

He should have had sense enough to know that while he bashed President Obama for eight years. Are Trump supporters okay with his "new" Afghanistan strategy - which is like the same "old" President Obama strategy? Apparently Bannon and Breitbart aren't okay with it.

I actually applaud the President on listening to the Generals and trying to do the right thing.

But after 16 years it appears the same. We pull back, they fill the void. We rush back in and they pull back. We have to get out of there sometime

This "secret strategy" stuff seems kinda dopey. They know how many troops are there and what they are doing

They live there

Wow. I just slammed lakosha about not being happy to see Trump listening to advice.


Good for you, this is the RW that we used to have.

I am willing to cut our President some slack and see what happens

I was glad he was not ordering combat troops

However I believe no president is capable of "fixing" Afghanistan

I agree.


We cannot fix the Middle East. We can keep ourselves separate and safe.

As long as we are not seeing military casualties I am OK with limited troops in an advisory role

But long term, we need an exit strategy

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

Regime change in PAKISTAN?!

Condi has already regime-changed Pakistan.

Remember that Pakistan used to be an overt military dictatorship but she persuaded them to change their regime to an elected civilian government.

Regrettably that regime-change of Pakistan was too superficial and insincere to make a profound difference to the hostile intent of the deep state of Pakistan which is still sponsoring terrorism against us.

So a more rigorous regime-change will be required, but in principle it will be more of the regime-change which Pakistan has already conceded to.

Which not only has a population of literally FIVE times that of Afghanistan, but also nuclear weapons?

Sure. The same population and nuclear weapons Pakistan had before when they regime changed.

You are talking WWII level of warfare.

Winning World War II was child's play because only the US had nuclear weapons.

This is the Global War on Terror where the enemy has control of nuclear weapons - Pakistan has nuclear weapons as you pointed out - and so it is a step up in difficulty over World War II.

To win this war, we must play our A-team - so that's Condi and me.

But no worries, Condi won the Cold War against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact - they had nuclear weapons too - and she won the Cold War without any exchange of fire of nuclear weapons.

Except against an enemy that does not understand surrender.

To repeat, Pakistan has already agreed to a regime change, Pakistan has already "surrendered" once when they agreed to regime change from a military dictatorship to an elected civilian government.

However, that regime change last time was a somewhat superficial and an insincere regime change - what we should have expected I suppose - therefore we now need a new leadership team with a strategy to press for substantial regime-change which will make all the difference as regards ending Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism.

 

[Correll]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

Regime change in PAKISTAN?!

Condi has already regime-changed Pakistan.

Remember that Pakistan used to be an overt military dictatorship but she persuaded them to change their regime to an elected civilian government.

Regrettably that regime-change of Pakistan was too superficial and insincere to make a profound difference to the hostile intent of the deep state of Pakistan which is still sponsoring terrorism against us.

So a more rigorous regime-change will be required, but in principle it will be more of the regime-change which Pakistan has already conceded too.

Which not only has a population of literally FIVE times that of Afghanistan, but also nuclear weapons?

Sure. The same population and nuclear weapons Pakistan had before when they regime changed.

You are talking WWII level of warfare.

Winning World War II was child's play because only the US had nuclear weapons.

This is the Global War on Terror where the enemy has control of nuclear weapons - Pakistan has nuclear weapons as you pointed out - and so it is step up in difficulty over World War II.

To win this war, we must play our A-team - so that's Condi and me.

But no worries, Condi won the Cold War against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact - they had nuclear weapons too - and she won the Cold War without any exchange of fire of nuclear weapons.

Except against an enemy that does not understand surrender.

To repeat, Pakistan has already agreed to a regime change, Pakistan has already "surrendered" once when they agreed to regime change from a military dictatorship to an elected civilian government.

However, that regime change last time was a somewhat superficial and an insincere regime change - what we should have expected I suppose - therefore we now need a new leadership team with a strategy to press for substantial regime-change which will make all the difference as regards ending Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism.

To what end? Even if we were to spend the lives and money to fix Pakistan, that doesn't fix the Islamic World.

 

[jknowgood]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

 

[rightwinger]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

Obama sounds like he is searching for the correct word

With Trumps limited vocabulary..... great, the best, bigly

There is not much to choose from

 

[jknowgood]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

Obama sounds like he is searching for the correct word

With Trumps limited vocabulary..... great, the best, bigly

There is not much to choose from

Trump gives great speeches without a teleprompter. Something Obama can't do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

if this was say Obama giving this same speech you would be saying how great a leader he is....right lakota?....