Trump's Interesting Interview with Hannity.

[Circe]

We won World War II, and pretty fucking decisively.

We could've done the same in Afghanistan. The world would not have approved, but the means is there to take a country like Afghanistan and start over from scratch...

We can't actually fight anymore, not since Vietnam, because, see, somebody might get hurt. Somebody foreign, that is --- doesn't matter so much if our guys get hurt and killed, apparently. We have to pretend we're their bestest new friends and hope they believe it. Nobody has ever believed it since the 1960s, but hey, maybe someday somebody will, 20 years into what we fondly call a "war" with them.

Doesn't sound very plausible, though. No, the way it works is, we invade, everybody there hates us, we take 20 years and they win and we lose, we decide to evacuate, and fly out people on helicopters, leaving a lot behind.

I'm not sure this is a good process.

 

[Circe]

But isn’t the old name much more appropriate?

No, we don't do war anymore; we haven't done war since Korea. So there's no use having a Secretary of War.

 

[gipper]

No, we don't do war anymore; we haven't done war since Korea. So there's no use having a Secretary of War.

And yet we’ve been at war almost nonstop since Korea.

 

[iceberg]

Trump said some interesting things in last night's interview with Sean Hannity.

Specifically, it has to do with the Afghan military and the Taliban.

Trump recounted:



I have no reason to doubt Trump. If true, which I suspect it is, then he is absolutely right. If you are bribing your allies to fight, then they are nothing more than mercenaries. They have no loyalty to the cause and will flee as soon as the paychecks stop coming in.

It explains in some part the sudden collapse of the Afghan military.

Trump went on about the Taliban leadership:



Interesting that Trump admitted he got along better with the Taliban than our Afghans allies. Kind of reminds me how Trump got along better with Putin than Merkel for instance. However, I don't disagree that the Afghan leadership was corrupt. The question is why didn't he deal with that corruption, but by that point there was little, Trump or any president for that matter, could do about it anyway.

Trump went on:



So, Trump himself is acknowledging the reality of Afghanistan and the poor choices we faced there.

From the NY Post:



So in other words, here is a tacit acknowledgement that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was inevitable after the US withdraws. If not, why would Trump threaten them with massive retaliation if our country was hit by a terrorist attack. I don't disagree with Trump there, I agree with him that he should have warned the Taliban of the ramifications of any attack on the US.

I am not bashing Trump in this thread because many of the points, not all, he makes I agree with.

Trump calls Afghanistan collapse ‘most humiliating’ moment for US

Former President Donald Trump described the ongoing mayhem in Afghanistan as the worst humiliation in American history Tuesday, while defending the agreement his administration struck with the Tali…

nypost.com

neo
maxie
zoontweetie

 

[Circe]

And yet we’ve been at war almost nonstop since Korea.

Not real wars. Our population insists that nobody get hurt, at least not by us.

 

[gipper]

Not real wars. Our population insists that nobody get hurt, at least not by us.

Lol. And yet we mass murdered by the hundreds of thousands Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis.

Put down the pipe.

 

[Circe]

Lol. And yet we mass murdered by the hundreds of thousands Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis.

That's WHY our population insists we don't kill anybody in war. The Dem-types noticed that we were killing a lot of people and demanded a stop. Now we have to invade them and then fix them up, see. Who could object to that, right? We don't much like ours being killed either, really. But I think a lot of leftists figure, we're the aggressors, so whatever.

We are headed so fast for push-button warring. That's already the drone assassinations, and of course the Taliban or whatever, ISIS-K if you believe in them, send in suiciders who push a couple buttons for their effect. I suspect that already if people are killed by pushing buttons, especially from far away, it sort of doesn't count.

 

[gipper]

That's WHY our population insists we don't kill anybody in war. The Dem-types noticed that we were killing a lot of people and demanded a stop. Now we have to invade them and then fix them up, see. Who could object to that, right? We don't much like ours being killed either, really. But I think a lot of leftists figure, we're the aggressors, so whatever.

We are headed so fast for push-button warring. That's already the drone assassinations, and of course the Taliban or whatever, ISIS-K if you believe in them, send in suiciders who push a couple buttons for their effect. I suspect that already if people are killed by pushing buttons, especially from far away, it sort of doesn't count.

I don’t know where you’ve been. Our corrupt government just got done killing by some estimates, one million Iraqis.

Obama dropped more bombs than W. He mass murdered many, yet you think Ds won’t resort to total war.

We don’t need anymore war. It’s bankrupting the nation and eliminating rights at home. If this continues it will end the American empire, as history clearly indicates.

 

[Circe]

I don’t know where you’ve been. Our corrupt government just got done killing by some estimates, one million Iraqis.

Obama dropped more bombs than W. He mass murdered many, yet you think Ds won’t resort to total war.

We don’t need anymore war. It’s bankrupting the nation and eliminating rights at home. If this continues it will end the American empire, as history clearly indicates.

Can't agree ---- war is not what ends empire, usually. Roman legions invaded all over and killed millions by hand, the hard way. Rome fell because of severe corruption and outright madness in the top leadership for a long time, plus invasion by a gazumpteen number of illegal aliens of all kinds, from Huns to Vandals to Ostrogoths and counting. Like we have. Europe, too.

I guess war did end the Austro-Hungarian empire, come to think of it. (WWI) And it didn't do the British Empire any good; they had to give up their empire after WWII. I don't think the war was directly related to the war, though. Mainly, they didn't have enough white Britons to manage the empire. They don't run themselves: you have to keep an empire under control, as the rulers of all the Caribbean islands found out after their slaves took them over. Interesting question.

 

[gipper]

Can't agree ---- war is not what ends empire, usually. Roman legions invaded all over and killed millions by hand, the hard way. Rome fell because of severe corruption and outright madness in the top leadership for a long time, plus invasion by a gazumpteen number of illegal aliens of all kinds, from Huns to Vandals to Ostrogoths and counting. Like we have. Europe, too.

I guess war did end the Austro-Hungarian empire, come to think of it. (WWI) And it didn't do the British Empire any good; they had to give up their empire after WWII. I don't think the war was directly related to the war, though. Mainly, they didn't have enough white Britons to manage the empire. They don't run themselves: you have to keep an empire under control, as the rulers of all the Caribbean islands found out after their slaves took them over. Interesting question.

It is a historical fact, constant war abroad leads to tyranny at home and ultimately the death of empires. Nothing is a greater threat to our liberty and happiness than constant war abroad.

Please read the following. It is indisputable.


Moreover, think of the destruction of civil liberties and privacy here at home at the hands of the FBI and the CIA. COINTELPRO, the infamous federal program to spy on and destroy opponents of the war, comes to mind. So does the killing of antiwar protestors at Kent State University at the hands of U.S. soldiers. Where do those things fit into Sloane’s concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

Accompanying the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were the USA PATRIOT Act, the infamous telecom scandals, and the NSA spying on Americans.

And let’s certainly not forget the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s infamous torture and prison camp in Cuba, which is based on indefinite detention, denial of due process, denial of speedy trial, denial of effective assistance of counsel, denial of the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the use of evidence and confessions acquired by torture.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t all those rights part of the Bill of Rights? And isn’t the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution? How does Sloane reconcile those violations of the Constitution with the soldier’s oath to support and defend the Constitution?

Our founding principles

Our American ancestors were steadfastly opposed to what they called “standing armies.” The main reason for their opposition was that they were convinced that a large military establishment consisting of soldiers who loyally and faithfully obeyed the orders of the ruler constituted the greatest threat to their freedom and well-being.

In his Fourth of July address in 1821, John Quincy Adams described America’s founding foreign policy. He said that America does not go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” He said that if America were ever to abandon this foreign policy of non-intervention, America would acquire the traits of dictatorship, which, of course, can pose a grave threat to“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
An Old Soldier’s Denial on Afghanistan - LewRockwell

 

[Circe]

It is a historical fact, constant war abroad leads to tyranny at home and ultimately the death of empires. Nothing is a greater threat to our liberty and happiness than constant war abroad.

Please read the following. It is indisputable.


Moreover, think of the destruction of civil liberties and privacy here at home at the hands of the FBI and the CIA. COINTELPRO, the infamous federal program to spy on and destroy opponents of the war, comes to mind. So does the killing of antiwar protestors at Kent State University at the hands of U.S. soldiers. Where do those things fit into Sloane’s concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

Accompanying the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were the USA PATRIOT Act, the infamous telecom scandals, and the NSA spying on Americans.

And let’s certainly not forget the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s infamous torture and prison camp in Cuba, which is based on indefinite detention, denial of due process, denial of speedy trial, denial of effective assistance of counsel, denial of the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the use of evidence and confessions acquired by torture.

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t all those rights part of the Bill of Rights? And isn’t the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution? How does Sloane reconcile those violations of the Constitution with the soldier’s oath to support and defend the Constitution?

Our founding principles

Our American ancestors were steadfastly opposed to what they called “standing armies.” The main reason for their opposition was that they were convinced that a large military establishment consisting of soldiers who loyally and faithfully obeyed the orders of the ruler constituted the greatest threat to their freedom and well-being.

In his Fourth of July address in 1821, John Quincy Adams described America’s founding foreign policy. He said that America does not go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” He said that if America were ever to abandon this foreign policy of non-intervention, America would acquire the traits of dictatorship, which, of course, can pose a grave threat to“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
An Old Soldier’s Denial on Afghanistan - LewRockwell

Oh, Rockwell, ouch.

I'm no fan of war but I do think if we invade and fight we should fight to win. I really won't accept anything else, and we haven't had fight-to-win since WWII. Everything since has been half-hearted, and we lost ALLLLL of them. So doing it that way does not work.

Agreed, the best thing is to keep out of useless, pointless wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Syria, Mogadishu, Libya --- no doubt there are several more they hide from us. Yemen, Somalia -- anyway, Afghanistan really was the only one arguably worth going in for, but we failed on all counts. Bin Laden escaped and we were defeated by the Taliban because we didn't really fight. This is a terrible record: wars mostly pointless and all of which we lost.

I think your idea that war is bad for the country is a step farther than we need: first, quit losing! After that we can talk about whether it's a good idea, assuming nobody bothered to address that earlier.

 

[gipper]

Oh, Rockwell, ouch.

I'm no fan of war but I do think if we invade and fight we should fight to win. I really won't accept anything else, and we haven't had fight-to-win since WWII. Everything since has been half-hearted, and we lost ALLLLL of them. So doing it that way does not work.

Agreed, the best thing is to keep out of useless, pointless wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Syria, Mogadishu, Libya --- no doubt there are several more they hide from us. Yemen, Somalia -- anyway, Afghanistan really was the only one arguably worth going in for, but we failed on all counts. Bin Laden escaped and we were defeated by the Taliban because we didn't really fight. This is a terrible record: wars mostly pointless and all of which we lost.

I think your idea that war is bad for the country is a step farther than we need: first, quit losing! After that we can talk about whether it's a good idea, assuming nobody bothered to address that earlier.

Oh brother. Rockwell wasn’t the author.

The thing that will save the USA is a policy of nonintervention. Continuing the warmongering guarantees the empire’s demise.

 

[Circe]

Oh brother. Rockwell wasn’t the author.

The thing that will save the USA is a policy of nonintervention. Continuing the warmongering guarantees the empire’s demise.

I don't disagree with you. We could have omitted ----- basically all of them. Including Serbia, by Clinton. Pointless: let the Europeans do it!!! Or not, whatever. The Balkans are not our problem, unless a prez up to funny biz needs to distract us from the latest Monica. We sure fought on the wrong side there: we fought for Muslims, and it looks like they never thanked us and never will.

The only wars I can remember I approved of was Granada --- that took about 17 minutes, and we won; oh, Reagan, where are you when we need you.

And theoretically, Afghanistan. But if we are just going to go there and take 20 years to LOSE, why go there at all???? We never found bin Laden there, and we were driven out by goat herders. I don't feel this has gone well. So okay, we should have given it all a miss, especially since we can no longer fight to win. Just can't do it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We won World War II, and pretty fucking decisively.

We could've done the same in Afghanistan. The world would not have approved, but the means is there to take a country like Afghanistan and start over from scratch...

Wrong.

Bush's failed, illegal war was lost from the outset.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Wrong.

Bush's failed, illegal war was lost from the outset.

Oh, absolutely correct.

You lack vision...

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Trump said some interesting things in last night's interview with Sean Hannity.

Specifically, it has to do with the Afghan military and the Taliban.

Trump recounted:



I have no reason to doubt Trump. If true, which I suspect it is, then he is absolutely right. If you are bribing your allies to fight, then they are nothing more than mercenaries. They have no loyalty to the cause and will flee as soon as the paychecks stop coming in.

It explains in some part the sudden collapse of the Afghan military.

Trump went on about the Taliban leadership:



Interesting that Trump admitted he got along better with the Taliban than our Afghans allies. Kind of reminds me how Trump got along better with Putin than Merkel for instance. However, I don't disagree that the Afghan leadership was corrupt. The question is why didn't he deal with that corruption, but by that point there was little, Trump or any president for that matter, could do about it anyway.

Trump went on:



So, Trump himself is acknowledging the reality of Afghanistan and the poor choices we faced there.

From the NY Post:



So in other words, here is a tacit acknowledgement that a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was inevitable after the US withdraws. If not, why would Trump threaten them with massive retaliation if our country was hit by a terrorist attack. I don't disagree with Trump there, I agree with him that he should have warned the Taliban of the ramifications of any attack on the US.

I am not bashing Trump in this thread because many of the points, not all, he makes I agree with.

Trump calls Afghanistan collapse ‘most humiliating’ moment for US

Former President Donald Trump described the ongoing mayhem in Afghanistan as the worst humiliation in American history Tuesday, while defending the agreement his administration struck with the Tali…

nypost.com

Trump is generally always right. It's one reason why the left hates him.

Say Corn poster, mind putting that quote in your signature since you're my bitch?

 

[JLW]

Trump is generally always right. It's one reason why the left hates him.

Say Corn poster, mind putting that quote in your signature since you're my bitch?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Candycorn, I should clarify. He figures he's onto something by quoting me under his sig. I live rent free on his watch and like the message, and wish he knew how to make room for more.

He even likes the Raiders.