Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[88Comrade2000]

Is Pence now on the firing line?

[Cooked Crack]

30 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Is Pence now on the firing line?

More like Pence might end up getting some tweets his way. Maybe send Pence to something he'd hate. Maybe have him speak to some log cabin Republicans

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Hmm...I don't know about in general, is tough sell.  It took a lot to get us to finally commit to world War 1 and 2, and people were spitting on military members coming back from Vietnam.  I agree our government likes war now because they expect to win, and used it way more then should've during cold war.  Your example of Latin America is spot on in terms of going too far, my question was about how public felt about it. Now, I think too many people think it's like call of duty, again, expecting to win

The American Public likes war.

 

I don’t think we used too but since the first Gulf War, and how that was turned into a video game I feel it’s been different. There is a distance to it now and it feels cool. Think about it, we are in a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan and no one is that bothered with it.

 

And we do not see consequences or or understand cause and effect. Many Americans hate immigration and want to curtail it from Latin America but don’t seem to see that our actions in Latin America and their conflicts and causing disruptions probably lead to immigration from those countries.

 

The military is America’s penis and we tend to like whipping it out.

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Apparently Franklin Graham thinks that calling out "Oh God" while banging a porn star counts as prayer.

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

**** you Franklin, you and the Grahams are ALL dead to me. You are worthless false prophets. You have fallen in with the Falwells and the Robertsons as enemies of the very faith you falsely speak for.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

we are in a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan and no one is that bothered with it.

This is just completely untrue. We drastically reduced our pressure and drew down our numbers at a critical moment when afghans were embracing democracy because of immense public pressure. The dollars and lives cost was too much for the public. The wounded soldiers was a new level of cost and it doesn’t sit well with the general public. 

 

We basically ceded Afghanistan back to the taliban. The people who pointed it out at the time ( the John McCain’s ) were mocked and shouted down. We are seeing the taliban resurge now. 

 

You have a completely warped view on this. The reality is the American public loves to see our military hit hard at a villain but does not have the stomach for the long term investment required for the Middle East.

 

when afghans were showing up to voting centers despite very vocal and serious threats from the taliban to blow places up, we were too busy ****ing about the trillions it cost and whatever the latest trend on Twitter was.  It was an amazing moment for a country that had been through a lot. A country we spent tons of money and lives on. A place that was not too long before the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks, run by a government that openly accepted terrorists. 

 

And majority of our country was unaware of the significance. They just wanted out. And now. 

[LadySkinsFan]

The Soviets were in Afghanistan for twenty years and it pretty much bankrupted them.

 

We were sidetracked from there by Iraq, which didn't have anything to do with Bin Laden, in fact they hated Am Queda. And Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.

 

We ****ed it up too.

 

Those people are tribal, they are divided. 

 

We should have gotten out as soon as Bin Laden was killed.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The American Public likes war.

 

I don’t think we used too but since the first Gulf War, and how that was turned into a video game I feel it’s been different. There is a distance to it now and it feels cool. Think about it, we are in a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan and no one is that bothered with it.

 

And we do not see consequences or or understand cause and effect. Many Americans hate immigration and want to curtail it from Latin America but don’t seem to see that our actions in Latin America and their conflicts and causing disruptions probably lead to immigration from those countries.

 

The military is America’s penis and we tend to like whipping it out.

Couldn't agree more (thought there are some people that don't like how long we've been in Afghanistan, like Obama).  

 

In general I didn't agree with, but like I said and you said, we look at it from the perspective of expecting to win and being insulated not just from what war looks like but what losing a war looks like as well.  We didn't get carpet bombed to the same level other countries did in World War II, our current population doesn't have a living generation that's seen a full scale war or invasion of American soil.  Hawaii and Midway might as well have been on the other side of the world, and it is. 

 

The immigration thing is as hypocritical as it is because I don't believe a lot of people understand what we did in latin american after world war 2. We've had such an effect on the international stage up to this point that you really cannot look at each situation from just what we're looking at currently.  It sucks, concerning immigration, if it was the other way around and our country was third world with families trying to figure out how take care of the people they love and provide them with a safe environment, what do people think we would do?  The same damn thing, illegal immigration would be going in the opposite direction.  

 

It's like our Foreign Policy decisions have built-in short-term memory loss.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Soviets were in Afghanistan for twenty years and it pretty much bankrupted them.

 

We were sidetracked from there by Iraq, which didn't have anything to do with Bin Laden, in fact they hated Am Queda. And Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs.

 

We ****ed it up too.

 

Those people are tribal, they are divided. 

 

We should have gotten out as soon as Bin Laden was killed.

Yet we actually brought democratic elections to them in a sit significantly shorter period of time, and they were accepting them. They showed up to vote in numbers we can’t get here.

 

our military completely retooled the ground game to focus on building relationships with the locals and working towards embracing their tribal allegiances instead of ignoring them. One of the generals testified with some pretty serious emotion about the effor and progress made. 

 

The Obama admin, bowing to peer pressure, walked away from it all. 

 

We ****ed up afghanistan because we had a poor plan to star with and jumped into Iraq too soon (huessain had to go and was openly courting terrorist orgs too) and when we finally figure it out and started to see progress we hit the eject button. Mostly because of public pressure. 

 

The revisionist history you all have here is absurd. 

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

And majority of our country was unaware of the significance. They just wanted out. And now. 

Here's the problem with the significance with that:  We had to foot too much of the bill.  

 

I get it, it was our idea, we did it worth out making sure everyone was okay with it, so we had to take responsibility for it.  We need other countries involved with this nation building.  We cannot afford to keep leading in troop numbers and resources towards these campaigns going forward.

 

If this is supposed to be a global community, then it needs to be more of a community effort.  We see catch-22s all the time in the sense of counties upset we're doing too much or not doing enough, what are they doing?

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

The Obama admin, bowing to peer pressure, walked away from it all. 

 

We ****ed up afghanistan because we had a poor plan to star with and jumped into Iraq too soon (huessain had to go and was openly courting terrorist orgs too) and when we finally figure it out and started to see progress we hit the eject button. Mostly because of public pressure. 

 

The revisionist history you all have here is absurd. 

Iraq aside, we never devoted the resources necessary from get-go to get the job done right and get out of there.  But some point, we have to get out of there.  Otherwise, we're going to be everywhere (and we cannot afford that).

 

Edit:  It should not have taken us so long to get the concept of "catch and hold".  

[tshile]

We did the worst thing you could do. 

 

We got involved in something we probably should not have and it cost us a lot of money and lives (though the death toll on our end was low by war standards to be honest...)

 

We we finally figured it out and saw some progress we ejected early enough to guarantee it would all be lost in short term. 

 

It’s a microcosm if 60 years of failed policy regarding the Middle East. 

 

The same damn story over and over. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

We did the worst thing you could do. 

 

We got involved in something we probably should not have and it cost us a lot of money and lives (though the death toll on our end was low by war standards to be honest...)

 

We we finally figured it out and saw some progress we ejected early enough to guarantee it would all be lost in short term. 

 

It’s a microcosm if 60 years of failed policy regarding the Middle East. 

 

The same damn story over and over. 

Agreed, but we shoulda got more countires involved, especially in the region so that they could help "police themselves" in a sense.  We screwed up our relationship with Pakistan because they couldn't tell if the relationship we had with Afghanistan was going to lead to them having a similar relationship with India (a major rival) which would've surrounded Pakistan.

 

What does "leader of the free world" even mean?  That we're expected to devote the most resources to maintaining it?

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Here's the problem with the significance with that:  We had to foot too much of the bill.  

Yeah? Who do you think is going to foot the bill next time?

 

us, obviously. And it’ll be even more expensive next time. 

 

Until we walk away forever or commit to what is necessary we’re going to be watching the same movie over and over. 

 

Do you think we will be willing and able to ignore the Middle East? Especially while we retain ties to Israel?

 

no?

 

what about committing to what needs to be done?

 

no, again?

 

enjoy another 60 years of foreign policy failure. Cause that’s what that leads to.

 

 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Agreed, but we shoulda got more countires involved, especially in the region so that they could help "police themselves" in a sense.  We screwed up our relationship with Pakistan because they couldn't tell if the relationship we had with Afghanistan was going to lead to them having a similar relationship with India (a major rival) which would've surrounded Pakistan.

 

What does "leader of the free world" even mean?  That we're expected to devote the most resources to maintaining it?

 

The sooner we tell Pakistan to go **** themselves he better. The more I read the more they show up ****ing everything up for us. Going back to the 70s when they used our funds and arms to selectively supply Afghan tribal leaders based on the ones they liked and didn’t like, not the ones doing the best work. 

 

Or how they took our supplies then told our money and used the money to buy the supplies back over again. 

 

Pakistan has been fleecing us since the 70s. They’re a huge part of the problem. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah? Who do you think is going to foot the bill next time?

 

us, obviously. And it’ll be even more expensive next time. 

 

Until we walk away forever or commit to what is necessary we’re going to be watching the same movie over and over. 

 

Do you think we will be willing and able to ignore the Middle East? Especially while we retain ties to Israel?

 

no?

 

what about committing to what needs to be done?

 

no, again?

 

enjoy another 60 years of foreign policy failure. Cause that’s what that leads to.

 

 

We're a part of NATO, why does it always feel like we're leading the way and NATO acting in a supporting role?  We aren't the only first world power with a military that can have an impact on other countries.  

 

France has already shown they are capable of acting on that in Africa without waiting for us, but 9 times out of 10, they're waiting on us.  Completely walking away and continuing what we're doing isn't going to work, so what's the middle ground?  Are you saying we need to lead the way in soldiers on the ground committed and financial resources for nation building?  You'll always see resistance to that if that's the route we keep on.  

 

Superpower or not, we're getting leaned on too much and then it gets thrown back in our face regardless of the results.

[tshile]

Because trump was right about two things (and that’s it as far as I can tell)

 

china gets away with too much in trade

 

and NATO is a joke. 

 

I want to talk more but I have to go and my phone keyboard and my spelling mistakes are pissing me off 

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I want to talk more but I have to go and my phone keyboard and my spelling mistakes are pissing me off 

Ya, I'm thinking about starting a thread about our foreign policy and place as leader of the free world anyway so this one doesn't get side-tracked too much.  Maybe tomorrow, though.  Agreed, Trump is right about NATO and China.

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

The sooner we tell Pakistan to go **** themselves he better. The more I read the more they show up ****ing everything up for us. Going back to the 70s when they used our funds and arms to selectively supply Afghan tribal leaders based on the ones they liked and didn’t like, not the ones doing the best work. 

 

Or how they took our supplies then told our money and used the money to buy the supplies back over again. 

 

Pakistan has been fleecing us since the 70s. They’re a huge part of the problem. 

 

What I've read has bothered me as well.  I also believe they don't trust us.  That's also a place I'm not sure what to do on because a lot of their moderates lately have been getting killed by Islamic extremist.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

This is just completely untrue. We drastically reduced our pressure and drew down our numbers at a critical moment when afghans were embracing democracy because of immense public pressure. The dollars and lives cost was too much for the public. The wounded soldiers was a new level of cost and it doesn’t sit well with the general public. 

 

We basically ceded Afghanistan back to the taliban. The people who pointed it out at the time ( the John McCain’s ) were mocked and shouted down. We are seeing the taliban resurge now. 

 

You have a completely warped view on this. The reality is the American public loves to see our military hit hard at a villain but does not have the stomach for the long term investment required for the Middle East.

 

when afghans were showing up to voting centers despite very vocal and serious threats from the taliban to blow places up, we were too busy ****ing about the trillions it cost and whatever the latest trend on Twitter was.  It was an amazing moment for a country that had been through a lot. A country we spent tons of money and lives on. A place that was not too long before the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks, run by a government that openly accepted terrorists. 

 

And majority of our country was unaware of the significance. They just wanted out. And now. 

*tries hard not to pull it out*

[Riggo-toni]

12 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Edit: I misunderstood tshile's original post (can I blame sleep deprivation?), which after re-reading, I essentially agree with...I thought he was writing about Iraq, which is what my response below was meant to answer.

.............

 

Actually, the Obama administration merely obeyed the treaty that GWB signed with the democratically elected government. A government that elected a vicious Iranian stooge, Maliki. Not a surprising result, given that Bush's state department's favorite link for setting up the new government was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iranian born convicted felon who was a double agent for Tehran.

Obama's one great blunder was not pressuring the various parties to form a coalition to push Maliki out after Ayad Allawi made gains in the second election.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[tshile]

40 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Actually, the Obama administration merely obeyed the treaty that GWB signed with the democratically elected government. A government that elected a vicious Iranian stooge, Maliki. Not a surprising result, given that Bush's state department's favorite link for setting up the new government was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iranian born convicted felon who was a double agent for Tehran.

Obama's one great blunder was not pressuring the various parties to form a coalition to push Maliki out after Ayad Allawi made gains in the second election.

 

I thought Iraq was the country we did that with? I also thought the biggest issue was that they refused to extend immunity to our soldiers?

 

(I get easily confused with this stuff. It’s a lot of moving parts and I just don’t know enough )

(I wasn’t necessarily trying to place the blame on Obama’s for that)

[visionary]

 

 

 

[c slag]

4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

**** you Franklin, you and the Grahams are ALL dead to me. You are worthless false prophets. You have fallen in with the Falwells and the Robertsons as enemies of the very faith you falsely speak for.

All these people care about is how much money someone puts in that solid gold plate they pass around 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

21 minutes ago, c slag said:

All these people care about is how much money someone puts in that solid gold plate they pass around 

Wost part is that they don’t actually create anything. They only take from others.