- Thread starter
- #81
Get lost.
The Iran Nuke Primer
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,879
- 17,739
- 2,250
Feel free to present the Evacuation Plan that Benedict Donald approved, or forwarded to the incoming administration.
Here is the generals testimony
Sec. Lloyd Austin: (23:40) So let me take each in turn. Retaining Bagram would've required putting as many as 5,000 US troops in harms way just to operate and defend it. And it would've contributed little to the mission that we've been assigned and that was to protect and defend the embassy, which was some 30 miles away. That distance from Kabul also rendered Bagram of little value in the evacuation. Staying at Bagram even for counter-terrorism purposes meant staying at war in Afghanistan, something that the president made clear that he would not do.
Military Leaders on Afghanistan Exit: Transcript | Rev
Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin testified on the withdrawal from Afghanistan on 9/28. Read the transcript here.
www.rev.com
In the fall of 2020 my analysis was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, damaging US worldwide credibility, and could precipitate a general collapse of the ANSF and the Afghan government resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or general civil war. That was a year ago. My assessment remained consistent throughout. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders, then Secretary of Defense, Esper, submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending to maintain US forces at a level between about 2500 and 4500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reduction. Two days later on 11, November, 2020, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan no later than 15, January, 2021. Gen. Milley: (32:48) After further discussions regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, the order was rescinded. On 17 November we received a order, to reduce levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January.
Secretary Austin, you said in response to Senator Warren that if we stayed past August 31st, we would certainly be back at war with the Taliban and that you'd have to reinforce yourself. Do I interpret your testimony to mean that staying at 2500 past the 31st was not sustainable at an acceptable level of risk to American personnel and that we would be seeing today casualties which could be accumulating at an unacceptable rate? Sec. Austin: (03:07:41) Chairman, I think the point that's been left out of a lot of the conversation is that had we stayed past that date that was agreed upon early on, that the Taliban would begin to attack us, attack our forces there. We'd have to make some decisions on how to reinforce our forces so that we could continue to operate and that would include quite possibly increasing the force there. Mr. Reed: (03:08:09) Now, in the Doha Agreement, President Trump agreed to leave with certain conditions on May 1st. Those conditions have been testified by the panel that were really never achieved, never challenged by the Trump administration. Would you consider that an abdication of or a surrender, that agreement? Sec. Austin: (03:08:37) I certainly believe that the conditions were preset and again, we met, lived up to all the things that we were obliged to do. We didn't attack them and we drew down our forces, but the Taliban, the only thing that they lived up to was that they didn't attack us. Mr. Reed: (03:08:59) And we saw a great deal of difficulty in meeting the deadline which was August 31st. Would it appear to you that a May 1st deadline as President Trump imagined would have caused more complications in terms of getting our equipment out, getting our personnel out, identifying Americans who were eligible to leave and getting them the paperwork since you would be doing it at a much shorter timeframe? Sec. Austin: (03:09:32) Yeah, I don't think that would have been feasible to do that in an orderly fashion, Chairman. Mr. Reed:
AI - Ain't Intelligent.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,879
- 17,739
- 2,250
The Generals testified as to why that Airbase was not appropriate for the evacuation.
Where was his plan when he ordered the complete evacuation by Jan 15th? He had already reduced our troop strength to 4,500 before the election.
You should ask AI where Benedict Donald's plan was and what it prescribed.
- Thread starter
- #84
There was never a time when you had the intelligence nor the strength to disagree with or criticize you Democrat masters, was there?Feel free to present the Evacuation Plan that Benedict Donald approved, or forwarded to the incoming administration.
Here is the generals testimony
Sec. Lloyd Austin: (23:40) So let me take each in turn. Retaining Bagram would've required putting as many as 5,000 US troops in harms way just to operate and defend it. And it would've contributed little to the mission that we've been assigned and that was to protect and defend the embassy, which was some 30 miles away. That distance from Kabul also rendered Bagram of little value in the evacuation. Staying at Bagram even for counter-terrorism purposes meant staying at war in Afghanistan, something that the president made clear that he would not do.
Military Leaders on Afghanistan Exit: Transcript | Rev
Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin testified on the withdrawal from Afghanistan on 9/28. Read the transcript here.
In the fall of 2020 my analysis was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, damaging US worldwide credibility, and could precipitate a general collapse of the ANSF and the Afghan government resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or general civil war. That was a year ago. My assessment remained consistent throughout. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders, then Secretary of Defense, Esper, submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending to maintain US forces at a level between about 2500 and 4500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reduction. Two days later on 11, November, 2020, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan no later than 15, January, 2021. Gen. Milley: (32:48) After further discussions regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, the order was rescinded. On 17 November we received a order, to reduce levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January.
Secretary Austin, you said in response to Senator Warren that if we stayed past August 31st, we would certainly be back at war with the Taliban and that you'd have to reinforce yourself. Do I interpret your testimony to mean that staying at 2500 past the 31st was not sustainable at an acceptable level of risk to American personnel and that we would be seeing today casualties which could be accumulating at an unacceptable rate? Sec. Austin: (03:07:41) Chairman, I think the point that's been left out of a lot of the conversation is that had we stayed past that date that was agreed upon early on, that the Taliban would begin to attack us, attack our forces there. We'd have to make some decisions on how to reinforce our forces so that we could continue to operate and that would include quite possibly increasing the force there. Mr. Reed: (03:08:09) Now, in the Doha Agreement, President Trump agreed to leave with certain conditions on May 1st. Those conditions have been testified by the panel that were really never achieved, never challenged by the Trump administration. Would you consider that an abdication of or a surrender, that agreement? Sec. Austin: (03:08:37) I certainly believe that the conditions were preset and again, we met, lived up to all the things that we were obliged to do. We didn't attack them and we drew dowTn our forces, but the Taliban, the only thing that they lived up to was that they didn't attack us. Mr. Reed: (03:08:59) And we saw a great deal of difficulty in meeting the deadline which was August 31st. Would it appear to you that a May 1st deadline as President Trump imagined would have caused more complications in terms of getting our equipment out, getting our personnel out, identifying Americans who were eligible to leave and getting them the paperwork since you would be doing it at a much shorter timeframe? Sec. Austin: (03:09:32) Yeah, I don't think that would have been feasible to do that in an orderly fashion, Chairman. Mr. Reed:
AI - Ain't Intelligent.
Or.....can you provide a few posts that did so?
You are truly a slave.
Trumps plan.
And you were lying about Trump not having a definite plan:
1.We will withdraw our civilians first
2. Then we will bring out our allies civilians
3. Next, the Afghans who aided us, the interpreters
4. Only then, will we draw out our US troops.
5. This will be done at Bagram Military Airbase, a fully defensible airport.
Under Biden: “The Bagram district governor, Darwish Raufi, expressed irritation with not being included in the process. He said in a statement that the U.S. military left “without coordinating with security and defense forces and in general without coordinating” with the Afghan government and officials in Bagram district.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/07/02/bagram-afghanistan-biden-war/
- Thread starter
- #85
Feel free to present the Evacuation Plan that Benedict Donald approved, or forwarded to the incoming administration.
Here is the generals testimony
Sec. Lloyd Austin: (23:40) So let me take each in turn. Retaining Bagram would've required putting as many as 5,000 US troops in harms way just to operate and defend it. And it would've contributed little to the mission that we've been assigned and that was to protect and defend the embassy, which was some 30 miles away. That distance from Kabul also rendered Bagram of little value in the evacuation. Staying at Bagram even for counter-terrorism purposes meant staying at war in Afghanistan, something that the president made clear that he would not do.
Military Leaders on Afghanistan Exit: Transcript | Rev
Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin testified on the withdrawal from Afghanistan on 9/28. Read the transcript here.
In the fall of 2020 my analysis was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, damaging US worldwide credibility, and could precipitate a general collapse of the ANSF and the Afghan government resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or general civil war. That was a year ago. My assessment remained consistent throughout. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders, then Secretary of Defense, Esper, submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending to maintain US forces at a level between about 2500 and 4500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reduction. Two days later on 11, November, 2020, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan no later than 15, January, 2021. Gen. Milley: (32:48) After further discussions regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, the order was rescinded. On 17 November we received a order, to reduce levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January.
Secretary Austin, you said in response to Senator Warren that if we stayed past August 31st, we would certainly be back at war with the Taliban and that you'd have to reinforce yourself. Do I interpret your testimony to mean that staying at 2500 past the 31st was not sustainable at an acceptable level of risk to American personnel and that we would be seeing today casualties which could be accumulating at an unacceptable rate? Sec. Austin: (03:07:41) Chairman, I think the point that's been left out of a lot of the conversation is that had we stayed past that date that was agreed upon early on, that the Taliban would begin to attack us, attack our forces there. We'd have to make some decisions on how to reinforce our forces so that we could continue to operate and that would include quite possibly increasing the force there. Mr. Reed: (03:08:09) Now, in the Doha Agreement, President Trump agreed to leave with certain conditions on May 1st. Those conditions have been testified by the panel that were really never achieved, never challenged by the Trump administration. Would you consider that an abdication of or a surrender, that agreement? Sec. Austin: (03:08:37) I certainly believe that the conditions were preset and again, we met, lived up to all the things that we were obliged to do. We didn't attack them and we drew down our forces, but the Taliban, the only thing that they lived up to was that they didn't attack us. Mr. Reed: (03:08:59) And we saw a great deal of difficulty in meeting the deadline which was August 31st. Would it appear to you that a May 1st deadline as President Trump imagined would have caused more complications in terms of getting our equipment out, getting our personnel out, identifying Americans who were eligible to leave and getting them the paperwork since you would be doing it at a much shorter timeframe? Sec. Austin: (03:09:32) Yeah, I don't think that would have been feasible to do that in an orderly fashion, Chairman. Mr. Reed:
AI - Ain't Intelligent.
Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to ...
Politico
https://www.politico.com › news › 2021/09/28 › top-ge...
Sep 28, 2021 — Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to withdraw from Afghanistan. Gen. Frank McKenzie said that he recommended maintaining a ...Read more
Contradicting Biden, top generals say they recommended ...
NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › politics › congress › penta...
Sep 28, 2021 — WASHINGTON — Top military leaders said Tuesday that they had recommended to President Joe Biden that the U.S. keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan ...Read more
Biden Rejects Pentagon's Views on Afghanistan Withdrawal
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics
Apr 23, 2021 — The Pentagon had fended off the political instincts of elected leaders frustrated with the grind of Afghanistan. But President Biden refused to be persuaded.Read more
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,879
- 17,739
- 2,250
Hahaha. The only contingency plan drawn up by the military were not ordered by Benedict Donald.
"The Pentagon recently began drawing up plans for an abrupt withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in case President Donald Trump surprises military leaders by ordering an immediate drawdown as he did in Syria, three current and former defense officials said."
Pentagon plans for Afghan withdrawal in case Trump blindsides military
Officials cautioned, however, that the planning is a precaution and there is currently no White House directive to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
www.nbcnews.com
Benedict never forwarded a plan to the incoming administration. It was done on purpose to make it hard on the Military and the new Administration. He even bragged about what he did
"Afghanistan, where, by the way, I started the process. All the troops are coming back home. They couldn't stop the process. Donald Trump: (22:53) 21 years is enough. Don't we think? 21 years. They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process when other things...yeah. Thank you. Thank you. It's a shame."
Donald Trump Wellington, Ohio Rally Speech Transcript | Rev
Donald Trump held a rally in Wellington, Ohio on June 26, 2021. Read the full transcript here.
www.rev.com
- Thread starter
- #87
There was never a time when you had the intelligence nor the strength to disagree with or criticize you Democrat masters, was there?Hahaha. The only contingency plan drawn up by the military were not ordered by Benedict Donald.
"The Pentagon recently began drawing up plans for an abrupt withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in case President Donald Trump surprises military leaders by ordering an immediate drawdown as he did in Syria, three current and former defense officials said."
Pentagon plans for Afghan withdrawal in case Trump blindsides military
Officials cautioned, however, that the planning is a precaution and there is currently no White House directive to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
Benedict never forwarded a plan to the incoming administration. It was done on purpose to make it hard on the Military and the new Administration. He even bragged about what he did
"Afghanistan, where, by the way, I started the process. All the troops are coming back home. They couldn't stop the process. Donald Trump: (22:53) 21 years is enough. Don't we think? 21 years. They couldn't stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process when other things...yeah. Thank you. Thank you. It's a shame."
Donald Trump Wellington, Ohio Rally Speech Transcript | Rev
Donald Trump held a rally in Wellington, Ohio on June 26, 2021. Read the full transcript here.
Or.....can you provide a few posts that did so?
You are truly a slave.
BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 58,879
- 17,739
- 2,250
Prior to that suggestion, they warned Benedict Donald in 2020...."an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, damaging US worldwide credibility, and could precipitate a general collapse of the ANSF and the Afghan government resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or general civil war."
But Donnie did it anyway didn't he?
They also explained in their testimony that 2,500 troops was not a sustainable number. That's all the Troops that Benedict wanted to leave for Biden. Biden couldn't just stay at that number, it would have to increased when the truce ran out.
Kruska
Diamond Member
Nonsense - and BTW. Gen. Mark Milley had already been appointed/reconfirmed during TACO's first stint.
You want to lay a justifiable claim/blame onto who screwed up the withdrawal? aside from TACO?
The top US brass in Afghanistan at the time - who was in charge, was Gen. Austin "Scott" Miller - also appointed by TACO.
A formidable and career oriented officer (we met the first time in Somalia 1993 - both of us being Captains at the time) who simply lacked the guts, to oppose or refuse Trumps plan.
Concerns about the Trump Deal: Miller testified to Congress that he had concerns about the substance of the Doha Agreement from its inception in February 2020, specifically that it left Afghan Security Forces "alone and unafraid" and was conducted between the U.S. and the Taliban without sufficient input from the Afghan government.
Executing Drawdowns: Despite his concerns, Miller, as a military commander, executed the orders to reduce troop levels to 4,500 and later 2,500 by the end of Trump's term.
Biden had no chance to stock up US troops - after TACO had agreed to decrease them to 2500. Furthermore Biden was bound by TACO's timeline, and his promise to the US public to pull out ALL US troops.
You can twist this as much as you want - it doesn't change the FACT that it was solely TACO who unilaterally called off the US commitment to Afghanistan, without informing the Afghan government and the NATO allies. And having confirmed/signed a troop reduction and deadline for a total US withdrawal with the Taliban, which did not allow for an organized retreat.
There isn't any (even the most daft Western politician) who could/would have pulled off such an idiotic/catastrophic decision as TACO did. Now I can think of three other who would be just as ignorant, Hegseth, Vance, and Rubio.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #90
Without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would still be in Paris, without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would not be guaranteed nuclear weapons, without the Democrat Partly their economy would be in free-fall.
- Thread starter
- #91
Who would you like to win the war, America or Iran?
Have you ever written a post criticizing the Democrat Party?
Kruska
Diamond Member
Silly girl,
this isn't about winning a war against Iran - a total military underdog.
It's about what happens after, Israel and the USA bombed, killed Iranians and infuriated that country for two times in 12 month, and TACO honoring his nickname once again.
Imagine the USA bombing the shit out of N-Korea in 1951 - and then leaving the Kim's and the N-Koreans to themselves. !!!
...hm...! ... your cogs in your messed-up clockwork starting to move now??
Actually ALL the time in this thread - religious Carter having supported the Shah, instead of getting on terms with the Ayatollah.
Reagan straightaway went into doing business with the Ayatollah, then got caught selling Cocaine to the USA.
Presently I don't care about the Democratic Party - they are not the ones running the USA and screwing up the world right now.
They will do it as well - once they are back in power - don't worry. - see Ukraine.
You are so blind, one-sided and brainwashed that you can't even realize that there is NO difference between the two, when it comes to preserving/promoting US Global Hegemony.
You ever wrote a post - critical of TACO and his MAGA dolts? NO, off-course not.
- Thread starter
- #93
As I have documented, Carter did no such thing, liar.
He dumped the Shah, and installed Khomeini.
Answer the question:
Who would you like to win the war, America or Iran?
Have you ever written a post criticizing the Democrat Party?
- Thread starter
- #94
AI Overview
In January 1979, the Carter administration, viewing the Shah’s position as untenable, encouraged the terminally ill Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to leave Iran for "an extended vacation," essentially forcing him into exile
. This move aimed to stabilize the situation but accelerated the collapse of the interim government, allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to take power.
Carter installed the Mullahs, Obama guaranteed them nuclear weapons, and Biden paid them to develop the nukes and missiles.
All from the Party of Death:
1.“32,000 people were killed over a relatively short period of time,” Trump told reporters, saying, “I feel very badly for the people of Iran.”
Estimates from doctors based outside Iran range the death toll up to 33,000 or more, according to The Guardian."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ver-30000-while-considering-military-strikes/
2. While Trump has used this human life loss as reason to upend the Iranian Mullahs, Democerats Obama and Biden were the greatests supporters and investors in Iran and its nuclear program.
3. Consistent with that Democrat view, and the very opposite of Western Civilization, when I have asked a number of Democrat posters their view on the sanctity of human life, every one has run and hid.
4. AI Overview
Since the 1973
Roe v. Wade decision, over 63 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States. While annual numbers peaked around 1990, recent estimates show over 1 million abortions in 2024.
Both domestically and in foreign policy, the value of human life is the defining difference between the Left (Democrats) and the Right.
Last edited:
Kruska
Diamond Member
Obviously YOU can't read, but simply prefer to stick to bullshit and utter nonsense, since the latter confirms your made-up believes.
Obviously YOU can't read - I already did.
Kruska
Diamond Member
You're OBVIOUSLY - just a silly girl, endlessly reiterating TACO bull. Have fun and keep staying ignorant.
- Thread starter
- #97
Clearly you can neither stop lying nor refrain from vulgaroty......many do that when they have lost the argument.
The pattern speaks for itself:
Without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would still be in Paris, without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would not be guaranteed nuclear weapons, without the Democrat Partly their economy would be in free-fall.
Kruska
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #99
It's impossible to miss the pattern here.........Democrarats licking the boots of the Mullahs....
Without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would still be in Paris, without the Democrat Party the Mullahs would not be guaranteed nuclear weapons, without the Democrat Partly their economy would be in free-fall.
....just as it's impossible to miss this patten:
You licking the boots ofd the Democrat Party
Kruska
Diamond Member
Similar threads
