Trump surrenders to the Taliban

[jc456]

So what would you do?

I would have advocated for punishing as many al Qaeda camps as necessary to drive them out and kill their leaders, as well as reigning hell on anyone who got in our way. Then leave a post it note on the door to not let terrorist use the country to attack us again or we'll be back with more hell. I think I would have saved a little hell for the cells in Yemen too. Pay back for the USS Cole. No Nation building. No long term occupation. No Iraq invasion.

That's what we've been doing for the last 19 years. It's pretty obvious the Taliban is not going to disappear in a puff of smoke. You either stay there and try to kill everyone of them for the next 20 or 30 years, or just say "fuckit" and leave. It's not an easy choice.

The Taliban is not al Qaeda. The first big mistake was made when Clinton failed to respond to their attack on Oct 12,2000 that killed 17 sailors. Next Bush ignored them for 7 months.

A lot of mistakes were made, but none of that has anything to do with withdrawing now. The only important question is, how does it serve the interests of the US or our allies for the US to continue to fight a war in Afghanistan?

Is it really a war or are we just occupying/supporting certain portions of Afghanistan?

why does that matter. It's a peace treaty. for a conflict. does it say war?

 

[Crepitus]

Amazing how the moonbats suddenly became enamored with endless foreign wars.

Surely that isn't your takeaway from the the OP.

I really thought you were smarter than that.

 

[Theowl32]

The leftists want us to stay in a war that they called an illegal war?

Is that what we are learning from these double talking ignorant racist left wing losers?

 

[jc456]

Amazing how the moonbats suddenly became enamored with endless foreign wars.

Surely that isn't your takeaway from the the OP.

I really thought you were smarter than that.

well what other option is there when one uses a word like 'surrender'. That's a call out. you're messed as usual.

 

[jc456]

That's what we've been doing for the last 19 years. It's pretty obvious the Taliban is not going to disappear in a puff of smoke. You either stay there and try to kill everyone of them for the next 20 or 30 years, or just say "fuckit" and leave. It's not an easy choice.

The Taliban is not al Qaeda. The first big mistake was made when Clinton failed to respond to their attack on Oct 12,2000 that killed 17 sailors. Next Bush ignored them for 7 months.

A lot of mistakes were made, but none of that has anything to do with withdrawing now. The only important question is, how does it serve the interests of the US or our allies for the US to continue to fight a war in Afghanistan?

Is it really a war or are we just occupying/supporting certain portions of Afghanistan?

Whatever you want to call it, it is expensive and dangerous for our soldiers, so if it does not serve any interests of the US or our allies, wh stay there?

As Colin Powell said, you break it, you own it... US allies are the Afghan Army and Afghan Government, if you desert them and they fail every future ally will question US...

What it would effectively say is : US doesn't have your back, even if we say we do...

This is not saying Trump is wrong leaving, but has this been considered, have obligations been met.

that's up to the president of Afghanistan to say. if he signs it, then yeppers!

 

[BlindBoo]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

 

[jc456]

The leftists want us to stay in a war that they called an illegal war?

Is that what we are learning from these double talking ignorant racist left wing losers?

I don't pay attention to them any longer. the wind blows east the wind blows west. When one contradicts their own words and actions so often, it is obvious it is the left against our country. Because the left can't make a decision or choice other than bitch.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is there a pattern here?

Yes, yes there is.

I bet you can't figure it out though. I'll give you a hint...

20, 4, 19


GO!

 

[jc456]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

So he ignored what was actually happening in their country and didn't offer any update on the region. too fking funny. you back something where a president did absolutely nothing. maybe he needed to go back to the UN and say, hey if I do this, the ISIS will integrate into the country and expand. Pleading ignorant isn't a defense.

 

[jc456]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

well again, it is the acceptance of the jewish people that is of issue with the arabs. how sweet you spin it to be the acceptance of the arabs. So little bitty Isreal sits in between five countries inhabited by arabs, who hate their fking guts so much they don't care about civilian casualties. And it's the US that is the issue after WWII. Got it.

 

[Crepitus]

Amazing how the moonbats suddenly became enamored with endless foreign wars.

Surely that isn't your takeaway from the the OP.

I really thought you were smarter than that.

well what other option is there when one uses a word like 'surrender'. That's a call out. you're messed as usual.

Don't worry, I knew you weren't smarter than that.

 

[Thunderbird]

Why are we STILL in Afghanistan?!?

 

[jc456]

Amazing how the moonbats suddenly became enamored with endless foreign wars.

Surely that isn't your takeaway from the the OP.

I really thought you were smarter than that.

well what other option is there when one uses a word like 'surrender'. That's a call out. you're messed as usual.

Don't worry, I knew you weren't smarter than that.

you're right, I have no fking clue how you think. I just know the english language and what the word 'surrender' means. you don't obviously and why the disconnect.

 

[Crepitus]

you're right.

About time you noticed.

 

[jc456]

you're right.

About time you noticed.

I know you're fked in the head. You're right!! glad i could point that out for you.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Is there a pattern here?

In December 2018 Trump lost his most capable secretary of defense, Marine General James Mattis. Trump had ordered a retreat in Syria. Mattis failed in one last attempt at persuading the President to reverse his decision about Syria, which Trump had announced on Wednesday of that week over the objections of his senior advisers. Mattis subsequently resigned. Eventually, the Pentagon overruled Trump, and the retreat order was cancelled.

In October 2019, Trump ordered the withdrawal of American forces from northern Syria, a decision that effectively ceded control of the area to the Syrian government and Russia. Hundreds of our allies responsible for the destruction of the ISIS caliphate were killed, and thousands more were forced to flee their homes in Syria.

In February 2020 Trump struck a deal with the Taliban that will have the United States withdraw from the country in 14 months if the rogue regime meets certain criteria, including stopping attacks on U.S. forces in the country (huh?). Trump, who avoided military service, is apparently ignorant of the meaning of war.

The U.S. removed the Taliban from power in October 2001 because it sponsored Al Qaeda. On 9/11 Al Qaeda was responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans. The Taliban is responsible for the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Now Trump is surrendering to the Taliban. There is little doubt that once American troops leave, the Taliban will regain power in Kabul, and Afghanistan will once again become a haven for Islamic terrorism thanks to Trump. The Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists.

Is there a pattern here? Most definitely. Trump is placating his patron, Vladimir Putin. He has done so throughout his Presidency. He causes consternation with our allies abroad and chaos at home. From Putin's viewpoint, what's not to like?

Just get us out

 

[basquebromance]

as soon as Trump came down that escalator, i knew he would embarrass america time and again as POTUS!

 

[jc456]

as soon as Trump came down that escalator, i knew he would embarrass america time and again as POTUS!

you're da man.

make sure you tell the blacks that their low unemployment shouldn't be that way. go for it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

So he ignored what was actually happening in their country and didn't offer any update on the region. too fking funny. you back something where a president did absolutely nothing. maybe he needed to go back to the UN and say, hey if I do this, the ISIS will integrate into the country and expand. Pleading ignorant isn't a defense.

There was no ISIS in 2011. Ya'll just keep reinventing history.

 

[jc456]

Nation building worked fine in Japan, Germany

They faced total devastation and the populations welcomed the end of the war. Germans were trying to get into the US sectors of Germany and especial away from the Russian Sector. Furthermore there was little in the way of armed resistance compare to the Oil Wars.

Obama pulled our troops out as a part of his 2012 reelection strategy.

In reality, after we defeated Iraq and Saddam's Government fell, President Bush went to the UN for help legitimizing the occupation. Which they did. The Iraqis, on the other hand, every year asked the UN to rescind the Occupation Mandate. At the end of 2007 the UN sided with the New Iraq government and the Gave the US 1 year to negotiate a SOFA. By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

US efforts at nation building have had nothing to do with imperialism or any globalist ideology. After WWII, these efforts were intended to stop the spread of communism

This was written many years ago but it is still relevant today.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

"After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.[3] The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region’s political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. "

"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long‐suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

By the end of 2008 Bush had to either get a new SOFA or get all the troops out of Iraq. His SOFA included the time table for our withdrawal which Obama followed almost to the tee.

So he ignored what was actually happening in their country and didn't offer any update on the region. too fking funny. you back something where a president did absolutely nothing. maybe he needed to go back to the UN and say, hey if I do this, the ISIS will integrate into the country and expand. Pleading ignorant isn't a defense.

There was no ISIS in 2011. Ya'll just keep reinventing history.

they just magically appeared? LOL