Trump voluntarily submits to Al Qa'eda in Afrghanistan

[Underseer]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/tr...nistan-us-negotiates-directly-taliban-report/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/world/asia/trump-afghanistan-strategy-retreat.html

After surrendering to Russia, now he's surrendering to Al Qa'eda.

No one waves the white flag more vigorously than Grovel McTreasonpants! He waves only the best white flags! #MAGA

Funny how the only time he is able to stand up to people, it's to America's traditional allies. For everyone else: surrender!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("I never!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
("You're lying!")
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

 

[repoman]

Wow, Underseer, I didn't know that you were an imperialist.

Hopefully Trump will be impeached soon and Pence will bring some righteous missile strikes to brown people all over the world.

 

[untermensche]

That is the problem once you go to war.

The violence if overpowering causes chaos and local force to withdrawal.

Staying is bad and leaving is bad.

That is why you don't willfully go to war.

No less willfully wage war for 17 years.

 

[funinspace]

Wow, Underseer, I didn't know that you were an imperialist.

Hopefully Trump will be impeached soon and Pence will bring some righteous missile strikes to brown people all over the world.

Though I don't know for sure, I don't think Underseer's comments are in support of a never ending occupation, but more about how El Cheato is always full of shit.

A quote from the first article: 'Trump had previously claimed to have a strategy to defeat the group, saying that the Taliban “need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms.”'

Yeah, I'm sure most here knew FFvC was full of shit, but it is still good to point it out...

 

[Underseer]

Wow, Underseer, I didn't know that you were an imperialist.

Hopefully Trump will be impeached soon and Pence will bring some righteous missile strikes to brown people all over the world.

So, surrendering to anyone and everyone isn't a bad thing because I'm an imperialist?

Gasp!

This proves that you are right and I am wrong! How could I fail to have seen such flawless logic myself sooner? It must be tough going through life being so clever.

 

[Underseer]

Wow, Underseer, I didn't know that you were an imperialist.

Hopefully Trump will be impeached soon and Pence will bring some righteous missile strikes to brown people all over the world.

Though I don't know for sure, I don't think Underseer's comments are in support of a never ending occupation, but more about how El Cheato is always full of shit.

A quote from the first article: 'Trump had previously claimed to have a strategy to defeat the group, saying that the Taliban “need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms.”'

Yeah, I'm sure most here knew FFvC was full of shit, but it is still good to point it out...

Bingo!

It is not surprising that the usual alt-right free speech warriors identitarians can't seem to take the hint even after it was made obvious.

Surrender, surrender, surrender.

That's all they know how to do. That and get angry at anyone who points out that they're just a bunch of surrender monkeys. Cheeto-eating surrender monkeys if you will.

 

[Elixir]

Surrender, surrender, surrender.

That's all they know how to do.

In the past, that has been the hallmark of the French. Maybe he learned from Macron?

 

[funinspace]

Surrender, surrender, surrender.

That's all they know how to do.

In the past, that has been the hallmark of the French. Maybe he learned from Macron?

Don't be a macaroon

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Getting out of a hopeless unwinnable conflict is a bad thing?

 

[ZiprHead]

Surrender, surrender, surrender.

That's all they know how to do.

In the past, that has been the hallmark of the French. Maybe he learned from Macron?

I hate the idea that the French surrendered easily. They were defeated. If they had continued fighting, massacres would have been a certain result. And don't forget the French resistance was a particular thorn in the side of the Nazis.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Is this what the right wing spin machine told you to say? Good boy.

Because when Obama was drawing down troops, those same 'people' accused him of surrendering, being weak on foreign policy, etc. Ya'll should at least work on being consistent, but since most of the 'base' has the memory of a goldfish, I guess that's not a requirement.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I did think his drawing down was good, but I had to criticize him because each time he drew down one troop in one area he sent two troops to some other area.

 

[J842P]

Is this what the right wing spin machine told you to say? Good boy.

Because when Obama was drawing down troops, those same 'people' accused him of surrendering, being weak on foreign policy, etc. Ya'll should at least work on being consistent, but since most of the 'base' has the memory of a goldfish, I guess that's not a requirement.

Are you replying to anyone in particular?

 

[funinspace]

Is this what the right wing spin machine told you to say? Good boy.

Because when Obama was drawing down troops, those same 'people' accused him of surrendering, being weak on foreign policy, etc. Ya'll should at least work on being consistent, but since most of the 'base' has the memory of a goldfish, I guess that's not a requirement.

Are you replying to anyone in particular?

I think it is this 'anyone'

 

[Worldtraveller]

Is this what the right wing spin machine told you to say? Good boy.

Because when Obama was drawing down troops, those same 'people' accused him of surrendering, being weak on foreign policy, etc. Ya'll should at least work on being consistent, but since most of the 'base' has the memory of a goldfish, I guess that's not a requirement.

Are you replying to anyone in particular?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was responding to Jason H.

I'm not sure what funinspace is trying to imply.

 

[J842P]

Is this what the right wing spin machine told you to say? Good boy.

Because when Obama was drawing down troops, those same 'people' accused him of surrendering, being weak on foreign policy, etc. Ya'll should at least work on being consistent, but since most of the 'base' has the memory of a goldfish, I guess that's not a requirement.

Are you replying to anyone in particular?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was responding to Jason H.

I'm not sure what funinspace is trying to imply.

Yeah, that wasn't obvious at all. Jason has been a consistent and principled anti-interventionist, much more so than most here, so you're going to have to explain a bit more what you are getting at.

And I believe funinspace is implying something about a "sock-puppet", which is an account started by someone for the purpose of deception, but I'm not sure *exactly* what funinspace is implying either.

 

[J842P]

Surrender, surrender, surrender.

That's all they know how to do.

In the past, that has been the hallmark of the French. Maybe he learned from Macron?

I hate the idea that the French surrendered easily. They were defeated. If they had continued fighting, massacres would have been a certain result. And don't forget the French resistance was a particular thorn in the side of the Nazis.

Yeah, I hate this too. People, Americans at least, have this idea that the French just sort of threw-up their arms and ran away. For fuck's sake, the French have one of the overall most successful martial histories in Europe. They didn't just run away!

The Germans out-maneuvered the French and the Allies spectacularly. They were able to avoid engaging the experienced French troops that had been sent to guard central Belgium, because Gemlin was convinced that is where the German panzers would come from.

From what I understand, Gamelin was refused to believe that the Germans were sending their tanks through the Ardennes even after the Belgians reported seeing giant German columns moving through the forest.

And where they fought, they fought bravely. A quarter of a million Allied soldiers died in the Battle of France.

And hell, the German's had a risky plan. It could have gone the other way, and Gamlin would have ended up being praised for his measured defense. But it didn't. The northern armies were outflanked, and the French civilian underbelly was totally exposed. They had no choice but to surrender.


Also, I've always thought that there was no excuse for being able to only match the German aircraft strength. The allies should have had air-superiority. I haven't been able to get a good explanation as to why they were so under-prepared in that regard.


This, and the idea that the Americans won the Revolutionary war because they "refused to fight in lines and fought behind trees" are some of my biggest pet peeves.

 

[bilby]

I hate the idea that the French surrendered easily. They were defeated. If they had continued fighting, massacres would have been a certain result. And don't forget the French resistance was a particular thorn in the side of the Nazis.

Yeah, I hate this too. People, Americans at least, have this idea that the French just sort of threw-up their arms and ran away. For fuck's sake, the French have one of the overall most successful martial histories in Europe. They didn't just run away!

The Germans out-maneuvered the French and the Allies spectacularly. They were able to avoid engaging the experienced French troops that had been sent to guard central Belgium, because Gemlin was convinced that is where the German panzers would come from.

From what I understand, Gamelin was refused to believe that the Germans were sending their tanks through the Ardennes even after the Belgians reported seeing giant German columns moving through the forest.

And where they fought, they fought bravely. A quarter of a million Allied soldiers died in the Battle of France.

And hell, the German's had a risky plan. It could have gone the other way, and Gamlin would have ended up being praised for his measured defense. But it didn't. The northern armies were outflanked, and the French civilian underbelly was totally exposed. They had no choice but to surrender.


Also, I've always thought that there was no excuse for being able to only match the German aircraft strength. The allies should have had air-superiority. I haven't been able to get a good explanation as to why they were so under-prepared in that regard.


This, and the idea that the Americans won the Revolutionary war because they "refused to fight in lines and fought behind trees" are some of my biggest pet peeves.

Appeasement and the desire to avoid a second war in Europe led both France and Britain to massively under-prepare, particularly with regards to air power. The Luftwaffe understood the value of aircraft, and in particular of dive bombers acting as long-range precision artillery, from their experience in Spain, and in the invasion of Poland.

One reason why the 'phony war' dragged on from the declaration of war in August 1939, until May 1940, was that the allies wanted to wait until they had built up their strength before attacking the Germans - something that become moot when the Germans attacked them. It wasn't until 1938 that Britain and France started to try to increase the size of their air forces; It was far too little and too late.

The sheer determination in both British and French parliaments that a second war should not happen, could not happen, and therefore did not need to be prepared for, is hard to grasp with the hindsight of history.

 

[funinspace]

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was responding to Jason H.

I'm not sure what funinspace is trying to imply.

Yeah, that wasn't obvious at all. Jason has been a consistent and principled anti-interventionist, much more so than most here, so you're going to have to explain a bit more what you are getting at.

Yup. That makes no sense.

And I believe funinspace is implying something about a "sock-puppet", which is an account started by someone for the purpose of deception, but I'm not sure *exactly* what funinspace is implying either.

Hum...I guess I should have gone for the more obvious...



But, FWIW a sockpuppet has several uses, including my intended one that is underlined:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sockpuppet

The reasons for sock puppetry can include:

Rigging voting results (Modern Library, anyone?[2])
Rigging discussions by creating a sockpuppet who "agrees" with your argument.
Rigging discussions by creating a sockpuppet who makes deliberately extreme or moronic (usually strawman) arguments against your own view.
Attempts to avoid rules, blocks or scrutiny.
Boredom
LANCB — but returning under an assumed sock