What a weird campaign tactic

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, Trump is doing something I didn't expect, and I've learned to expect the unexpected.

He is going against both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Both of them.

Trump administration finalizing plan to withdraw 4,000 troops from Afghanistan

This is a move that is opposed by both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It is supported by the people, but not the politicians.

How can he possibly expect to try to gain any popularity by doing what the people want instead of what the parties want?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Iran can’t be trusted, but the Taliban who has continued their attacks can be.

Of course, Trump doesn’t give a fuck about Afghanistan. He’ll easily let it burn for electoral gain.

The people are wrong. We broke it, we then fucked up in maintaining it, we own it. Withdrawal is unethical.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh, this is about trusting Iran or Taliban or who the fuck ever.

I thought this was about getting the troops out.

Thanks for putting us back onto the two-party topic. Now we can go ahead with the Bush-Obama foreign intervention doctrine indefinitely.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, this is about trusting Iran or Taliban or who the fuck ever.

I thought this was about getting the troops out.

Thanks for putting us back onto the two-party topic. Now we can go ahead with the Bush-Obama foreign intervention doctrine indefinitely.

The W Admin fucked it up. Any chance that existed, if it ever existed, was burned to the ground by the Neocons and their desire to decapitate Hussein.

We went into Afghanistan. They didn’t ask for us. We changed things in areas we controlled. Like educating women. This will collapse and there will be a lot of suffering. Yes I realize the suffering is insulated by mountains and oceans, so it really isn’t real. Basic human rights end at the border.

Indefinite intervention is the price you pay for arrogance and poor leadership. Luckily, Trump lacks a conscience and has no shame, so this’ll play nicely.

Maybe you can nominate him for a Nobel prize.

 

[Patooka]

Oh, this is about trusting Iran or Taliban or who the fuck ever.

I thought this was about getting the troops out.

Thanks for putting us back onto the two-party topic. Now we can go ahead with the Bush-Obama foreign intervention doctrine indefinitely.

I have no doubt you can provide examples of when you provided praise when Obama reduced troops in Afghanistan or Iraq post 2009. Because you are not a Republican. You are a...something else.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe Jason is a member of the Devil’s Advocate Party.

 

[funinspace]

Though I suspect that more rank and file Democrats in Congress are against continuing the US occupation of Afghanistan than Repugs, it is hard to know as it is about the least talked about occupation in modern history...

Anywho, here the Democratic controlled house, on a Democratic controlled committee, seemed to join with the Repug neocons, to force a slow down in any withdrawal from the fiasco. Maybe it is simply a political ploy on the whole bounty on US soldiers thing, or just being anti anything Clownstick, but pathetic either way. The amendment may not survive negotiations with the Senate...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ng-liz-cheney-prolong-endless-war-afghanistan

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee teamed up with Republicans this week to pass an amendment co-sponsored by Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney—daughter of notorious "war on terror" architect Dick Cheney—that prohibits Congress from spending money to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan without first meeting a series of vague conditions that critics said appear designed to prevent withdrawal.

The amendment (pdf)—co-sponsored by freshman Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.)—states that before the number of U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan can be reduced below 8,000, the Pentagon must certify that the withdrawal "will not increase the risk for the expansion of existing or formation of new terrorist safe havens inside Afghanistan" and "is in the best interest of the United States national security and in furtherance of United States policy toward Afghanistan for achieving an enduring diplomatic solution."

Despite a small bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to defeat the amendment, the measure easily passed by a vote of 45-11 and was added to the committee's version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Though I suspect that more rank and file Democrats in Congress are against continuing the US occupation of Afghanistan than Repugs, it is hard to know as it is about the least talked about occupation in modern history...

That certainly seems to be the case. I'm not certain why some people in DC think we need to stay there. Probably a mix of pragmatism, neoconism, might is right, etc...

I think we need to keep a presence to protect (the small but populated territory we have influence over) those that will lose so much if we leave. The return of the Taliban will be awful and painful for those in Afghanistan. They never asked us to come and now leaving them at the whim of a fake peace treaty?! We broke it, we own it. What tiny shred of moral high ground the US has is burned up with withdrawal.

Add to that the likely shifting of what is left of ISIS heading there would just ice the repeating history cake, just as al Qaeda healed its wounds in Afghanistan and launched 9/11.

 

[funinspace]

I think we need to keep a presence to protect (the small but populated territory we have influence over) those that will lose so much if we leave. The return of the Taliban will be awful and painful for those in Afghanistan. They never asked us to come and now leaving them at the whim of a fake peace treaty?! We broke it, we own it. What tiny shred of moral high ground the US has is burned up with withdrawal.

Yeah, we have disagreed on this a few times. IMPOV it is like arguing that the serial rapist, who happened to get one victim pregnant and she had the child, should feel responsible to be in the child's life as it grows up. Facing up the fact that we (the US) fucked up big time in Afghanistan is one thing, but staying there until it's 'fixed', is just...fucked up. We ain't going to fix it. Whatever shit that follows our leaving will come whether we left 5 years ago, leave tomorrow, or leave in 10 years.

Add to that the likely shifting of what is left of ISIS heading there would just ice the repeating history cake, just as al Qaeda healed its wounds in Afghanistan and launched 9/11.

I find this an odd argument. Just how many countries should we occupy cuz ISIS (or some other terror group) might build up/expand a presence there to operate from? Maybe Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Chad, Nigeria....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we need to keep a presence to protect (the small but populated territory we have influence over) those that will lose so much if we leave. The return of the Taliban will be awful and painful for those in Afghanistan. They never asked us to come and now leaving them at the whim of a fake peace treaty?! We broke it, we own it. What tiny shred of moral high ground the US has is burned up with withdrawal.

Yeah, we have disagreed on this a few times. IMPOV it is like arguing that the serial rapist, who happened to get one victim pregnant and she had the child, should feel responsible to be in the child's life as it grows up. Facing up the fact that we (the US) fucked up big time in Afghanistan is one thing, but staying there until it's 'fixed', is just...fucked up.

We aren't "fixing" Afghanistan. Our presence there would be to minimize the violence and keep the Taliban from taking over. We don't have a huge presence in Afghanistan and it has helped keep the Taliban back... kind of. With us leaving the Taliban being kind of held back will turn into in control in a very short time. I also feel for the military and police that we'll be betraying as well. Those collaborators will surely be paying a high price.

And the analogy is way too over the top. The US would be the Family Services agents removing the abusive parents from the home and putting the kids into a dysfunctional foster care while they turned their attention solely to another home with more kids in it. The dysfunctional foster home is still better than the abusive parents though.

Add to that the likely shifting of what is left of ISIS heading there would just ice the repeating history cake, just as al Qaeda healed its wounds in Afghanistan and launched 9/11.

I find this an odd argument. Just how many countries should we occupy cuz ISIS (or some other terror group) might build up/expand a presence there to operate from? Maybe Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Chad, Nigeria....

Well, seeing we weren't in a previous military operation in those said areas, the history repeating itself thing isn't as applicable. And as I noted before, the primary reason to stay is to keep women from becoming victims again because they learned to read, and the like.

 

[J842P]

And the analogy is way too over the top. The US would be the Family Services agents removing the abusive parents from the home and putting the kids into a dysfunctional foster care while they turned their attention solely to another home with more kids in it. The dysfunctional foster home is still better than the abusive parents though.
.

LOL No, it isn't. The USA is definitely the rapist in this analogy.

But really, what is your proposal here? Just occupy Afghanistan in perpetuity? You realize the Taliban has effectively won. Part of that is because they have much greater support, mostly because they are a much better alternative than the puppet government we've installed.

Let the collaborators come to the US. But we have to withdraw. We never had a shred of moral high ground to begin with, so that whole line of argument is moot.

 

[Elixir]

I believe Jason is a member of the Devil’s Advocate Party.

It's hard to see a libberpublican as an advocate of ANYTHING.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the analogy is way too over the top. The US would be the Family Services agents removing the abusive parents from the home and putting the kids into a dysfunctional foster care while they turned their attention solely to another home with more kids in it. The dysfunctional foster home is still better than the abusive parents though.
.

LOL No, it isn't. The USA is definitely the rapist in this analogy.

But really, what is your proposal here? Just occupy Afghanistan in perpetuity? You realize the Taliban has effectively won. Part of that is because they have much greater support, mostly because they are a much better alternative than the puppet government we've installed.

Let the collaborators come to the US. But we have to withdraw. We never had a shred of moral high ground to begin with, so that whole line of argument is moot.

LOL, no it isn’t for every woman that went to school.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I believe Jason is a member of the Devil’s Advocate Party.

It's hard to see a libberpublican as an advocate of ANYTHING.

Libertarians advocate peace, and you think peace is nothing. Therefore you conclude we advocate nothing.

Meanwhile, showing how much the Democrats agree with the Bush doctrine and thus nominated Biden
GOP Hawks Are Turning Out for Biden - Exiled from the Republican Party, some Bush-era Republicans are now backing Joe Biden. Colin Powell endorsed him on Tuesday night.

 

[fromderinside]

How can he possibly expect to try to gain any popularity by doing what the people want instead of what the parties want?

He can't. Particularly when his Republican sponsors go after him when he abandons his allies like he did he withdrew troops defending Kurds in Northern Syria as a favor to Russia and Turkey or when Democrats slam him for abandoning women in Afghanistan.

Amazing, just amazing, how 'the people' suddenly become headhunters when their sacred cows are skewered without party support.

 

[KeepTalking]

I believe Jason is a member of the Devil’s Advocate Party.

It's hard to see a libberpublican as an advocate of ANYTHING.

Libertarians advocate peace, and you think peace is nothing. Therefore you conclude we advocate nothing.

Meanwhile, showing how much the Democrats agree with the Bush doctrine and thus nominated Biden
GOP Hawks Are Turning Out for Biden - Exiled from the Republican Party, some Bush-era Republicans are now backing Joe Biden. Colin Powell endorsed him on Tuesday night.

Colin Powell!? Wow that is a big 180 from when he voted for Hillary in 2016!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Libertarians advocate peace, and you think peace is nothing. Therefore you conclude we advocate nothing.

Meanwhile, showing how much the Democrats agree with the Bush doctrine and thus nominated Biden
GOP Hawks Are Turning Out for Biden - Exiled from the Republican Party, some Bush-era Republicans are now backing Joe Biden. Colin Powell endorsed him on Tuesday night.

Colin Powell!? Wow that is a big 180 from when he voted for Hillary in 2016!

Bill Weld, Christie Whitman, Lisa Murkowski, ... war hawks. Granted, there aren't many non-war hawks among the Republican Party.

 

[KeepTalking]

Libertarians advocate peace, and you think peace is nothing. Therefore you conclude we advocate nothing.

Meanwhile, showing how much the Democrats agree with the Bush doctrine and thus nominated Biden
GOP Hawks Are Turning Out for Biden - Exiled from the Republican Party, some Bush-era Republicans are now backing Joe Biden. Colin Powell endorsed him on Tuesday night.

Colin Powell!? Wow that is a big 180 from when he voted for Hillary in 2016!

Bill Weld, Christie Whitman, Lisa Murkowski, ... war hawks. Granted, there aren't many non-war hawks among the Republican Party.

None of those are remotely surprising, they were all vary anti-Trump in 2016. It just shows that they are slightly more ethical than the likes of Lindsay Graham.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Lindsey...such a spineless cuck, as the Brits say. So devoid of principle and integrity. It's so much fun to see the stuff he was saying in 2015/early '16 about the Orange One. I hope his political obituary is about to be written. Classic Republican.

 

[funinspace]

We aren't "fixing" Afghanistan. Our presence there would be to minimize the violence and keep the Taliban from taking over. We don't have a huge presence in Afghanistan and it has helped keep the Taliban back... kind of. With us leaving the Taliban being kind of held back will turn into in control in a very short time. I also feel for the military and police that we'll be betraying as well. Those collaborators will surely be paying a high price.

Yes, we are keeping the Taliban out of Kabul, but that is about it for roughly $52,000,000,000 a year. It also comes with a huge local causality rate. The government with our roughly 8-10,000 soldiers largely control 30% of the country, which seems to be the new normal after sliding backwards ever since Pres. Obama dropped the soldier count down to the 'bare minimum' in 2012-14. Yeah, I would feel bad for those Afghan foot solders as well, but what $52 billion a year for forever? The current plan is a stalemate, and I don't think we have the will to outlast the Taliban will. It is also a hell of a lot of money that could help other people in the world not in a war zone; not that we would actually bother spending that much money helping funny people with the wrong skin pigments... But fuck yeah, tens of billions of dollars to blow shit and people up...Yippy Ki Yah, no problem.

https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-gov...o-controls-what-in-afghanistan-/30644646.html

Around 30 percent of Afghanistan's 407 districts are in government hands, the Taliban commands some 20 percent, and the rest of the country is contested, according to Long War Journal (LWJ), a project run by the Foundation for Defense Of Democracies, a Washington-based think tank.

Causalities: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/02/1057921

And the analogy is way too over the top. The US would be the Family Services agents removing the abusive parents from the home and putting the kids into a dysfunctional foster care while they turned their attention solely to another home with more kids in it. The dysfunctional foster home is still better than the abusive parents though.

It's an analogy to make a point...

Add to that the likely shifting of what is left of ISIS heading there would just ice the repeating history cake, just as al Qaeda healed its wounds in Afghanistan and launched 9/11.

I find this an odd argument. Just how many countries should we occupy cuz ISIS (or some other terror group) might build up/expand a presence there to operate from? Maybe Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Chad, Nigeria....

Well, seeing we weren't in a previous military operation in those said areas, the history repeating itself thing isn't as applicable. And as I noted before, the primary reason to stay is to keep women from becoming victims again because they learned to read, and the like.

History rarely repeats itself, but it does often rhyme. You really think that someone plotting some new version of 9/11 would feel the need to locate to Afghanistan to do their planning and training, over a dozen or so other locals that are also in chaos?

Refs:
Cost: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...hanistan-since-2001-infographic/#358b85b31971