Trump: combat dead and wounded in Afghanistan "FOOLISHLY SPENT"

[NotfooledbyW]

"The Defense Department's inability to field that many troops until next summer means it would likely take McChrystal longer than that to show progress."


jknowgood, post: 18934708

He requested 80,000.

McCrystal requested a range of troops from 10,000 to 60,000. You must have pulled your 80,000 out of your Trumpo-fake-reality arse.

I see you don't deny that you lied when you posted that Obama took six months to approve McChrystals troop requests. Late September to December 1st is not six months - or is it in fake reality world? It's actually anout about 2 months.

Do you deny that the Pentagon could not deploy additional troops until early 2010? That means Obama had several months allowable time to make a decision.

Pretty quiet about the six month lie. What is the matter?

But your fake concern about a two month decision is also a lie. A fake criticism.

"If the president does decide to send more US troops, it is far from clear when any of them could arrive. Although Army officials have said a handful of brigades – which are 3,500 to 5,000 troops each – are ready to go by year's end, the Pentagon would need many months to muster 40,000 troops, let alone 60,000.

"During his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hillthis summer, McChrystal said he would need about 18 months to show progress on the ground. The Defense Department's inability to field that many troops until next summer means it would likely take McChrystal longer than that to show progress."

Official: Obama wants his war options changed - The Houstonian

Give it up. You are a fraud. Youve got nothing correct yet.


jknowgood, post: 18934708

I haven't ridiculed Obama for sending Troops.

Wait a minute? Have you not agreed that Trump is correct that both Bush and Obama foolishly spent billions and billions on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The biggest expense was more and more troops.

When you post here You have ventured out of fake reality world Jknowgood. You can take both sides of an issue here but we are going to call you on it every time.


jknowgood, post: 18934708

I haven't ridiculed Obama for sending Troops. But he did wait a while to deploy them and 50,000 less than was needed by the general. Quit kissing ass.

I'm presenting facts to you. Try to learn something in the real world.

Now we must address your new lie that you have not ridiculed Obama for sending troops.

Do you agree that General Mchrystal recommended as many as 60,000 troops only if they were tied to the CI strategy that came with that request?

Since it is a documented fact you must agree.

So you must not know from deep inside your fake world that McChrystal's CI strategy is ordinarily based on the ROE that you are trashing right here.

jknowgood, post: 18894838

Yes, and by my understanding. Trump got rid of, rules of engagement. Big part of us losing wars.

So Trump trashes McChrystal's troop request and the ROE that came there with it and here you are. 'Trump is right'

jknowgood, post: 18883313

Nope we didn't fight the war to win, and many troops paid with their lives and limbs. That's the foolish part about it. Trump is right.

Your fake world is crumbling before your own eyes on this thread and still you cannot see it.

In your and Trump's eyes General Stanley McCrystal was a fool to request that Obama add 30,000 troops for the purpose of supporting kinder gentler ROE. Yet you claim to still support the troop increase as long as you can falsely bitch that Obama took too long to approve it.

Make up your mind. You are not in fake world when you post here.

 

[jknowgood]

"The Defense Department's inability to field that many troops until next summer means it would likely take McChrystal longer than that to show progress."


jknowgood, post: 18934708

He requested 80,000.

McCrystal requested a range of troops from 10,000 to 60,000. You must have pulled your 80,000 out of your Trumpo-fake-reality arse.

I see you don't deny that you lied when you posted that Obama took six months to approve McChrystals troop requests. Late September to December 1st is not six months - or is it in fake reality world? It's actually anout about 2 months.

Do you deny that the Pentagon could not deploy additional troops until early 2010? That means Obama had several months allowable time to make a decision.

Pretty quiet about the six month lie. What is the matter?

But your fake concern about a two month decision is also a lie. A fake criticism.

"If the president does decide to send more US troops, it is far from clear when any of them could arrive. Although Army officials have said a handful of brigades – which are 3,500 to 5,000 troops each – are ready to go by year's end, the Pentagon would need many months to muster 40,000 troops, let alone 60,000.

"During his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hillthis summer, McChrystal said he would need about 18 months to show progress on the ground. The Defense Department's inability to field that many troops until next summer means it would likely take McChrystal longer than that to show progress."

Official: Obama wants his war options changed - The Houstonian

Give it up. You are a fraud. Youve got nothing correct yet.


jknowgood, post: 18934708

I haven't ridiculed Obama for sending Troops.

Wait a minute? Have you not agreed that Trump is correct that both Bush and Obama foolishly spent billions and billions on Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The biggest expense was more and more troops.

When you post here You have ventured out of fake reality world Jknowgood. You can take both sides of an issue here but we are going to call you on it every time.


jknowgood, post: 18934708

I haven't ridiculed Obama for sending Troops. But he did wait a while to deploy them and 50,000 less than was needed by the general. Quit kissing ass.

I'm presenting facts to you. Try to learn something in the real world.

Now we must address your new lie that you have not ridiculed Obama for sending troops.

Do you agree that General Mchrystal recommended as many as 60,000 troops only if they were tied to the CI strategy that came with that request?

Since it is a documented fact you must agree.

So you must not know from deep inside your fake world that McChrystal's CI strategy is ordinarily based on the ROE that you are trashing right here.

jknowgood, post: 18894838

Yes, and by my understanding. Trump got rid of, rules of engagement. Big part of us losing wars.

So Trump trashes McChrystal's troop request and the ROE that came there with it and here you are. 'Trump is right'

jknowgood, post: 18883313

Nope we didn't fight the war to win, and many troops paid with their lives and limbs. That's the foolish part about it. Trump is right.

Your fake world is crumbling before your own eyes on this thread and still you cannot see it.

In your and Trump's eyes General Stanley McCrystal was a fool to request that Obama add 30,000 troops for the purpose of supporting kinder gentler ROE. Yet you claim to still support the troop increase as long as you can falsely bitch that Obama took too long to approve it.

Make up your mind. You are not in fake world when you post here.

Whatever you say, your little queer boy is the worst President we ever had.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jknowgood, post: 18935976

Whatever you say, your little queer boy is the worst President we ever had

Your hate based opinion does not appear to based upon anything related to facts, truth, honesty, integrity or understanding of the knowable reality we as human beings can find and learn with very little effort in this technological day and age.

You've been exposed. Now are you running away.

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood, post: 18935976

Whatever you say, your little queer boy is the worst President we ever had

Your hate based opinion does not appear to based upon anything related to facts, truth, honesty, integrity or understanding of the knowable reality we as human beings can find and learn with very little effort in this technological day and age.

You've been exposed. Now are you running away.

Not really, I see you never once denied that Obama is homosexual.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jknowgood, post: 18938021

Not really, I see you never once denied that Obama is homosexual.

Why did Obama have to commit to a total of over 100,000 US troops to Afghanistan in order to clean up Bush's mess there, but Trump only needs 10,000 to clean up what he calls Obama's mess there?

You wanted Obama to commit over 100,000 troops there to do nation building under very strict ROE. But you also claim the ROE was why we lost until Trump came along.

If Afghanistan was a foolish waste of funds and lives until Trump took over, why so much improvement with Iraq's armed forces and police that now only one tenth the US troop strength (as compared to 2009) is needed so Trump can brag that he won Afghanistan.

Do you ever think about such things.

Ten times improvement from 2009 to 2017. How do you explain it?

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood, post: 18938021

Not really, I see you never once denied that Obama is homosexual.

Why did Obama have to commit to a total of over 100,000 US troops to Afghanistan in order to clean up Bush's mess there, but Trump only needs 10,000 to clean up what he calls Obama's mess there?

You wanted Obama to commit over 100,000 troops there to do nation building under very strict ROE. But you also claim the ROE was why we lost until Trump came along.

If Afghanistan was a foolish waste of funds and lives until Trump took over, why so much improvement with Iraq's armed forces and police that now only one tenth the US troop strength (as compared to 2009) is needed so Trump can brag that he won Afghanistan.

Do you ever think about such things.

Ten times improvement from 2009 to 2017. How do you explain it?

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

 

[rightwinger]

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were a ridiculous waste of lives

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jknowgood, post: 18938452

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

No. That is impossible and quite stupid to be honest with you. All the rules of engagement have not changed. I believe two were changed in August this year.

Right now 10,000 US troops are deployed to defeat the Taliban and terrorists. which Trump promised they will do. They have not done it yet. Trump has not predicted when they will.

If changing the ROE was all the that was needed now to defeat the Taliban we would still need 100,000 troops again at the beginning.?

But Trump says he only needs 10,000 to WIN. Yeah yahooo. Some major conditions on the ground have changed. What are they?

What was different specifically last August before a couple ROE were modified. What result of all previous combat actually changed the conditions on the ground in 2017 as opposed to 2009.

You failed on your first answer but I will give you another chance.

Here is a clue. It has to do with the success of nation building. Do you know what specifically that is.

I have already mentioned it in previous posts.

And remember you said you were all in on adding 80,000 US troops under the ROE when that was General McChrystal's recommendation to Obama, but now you label that foolish management of the war with the war genius Trump.

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood, post: 18938452

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

No. That is impossible and quite stupid to be honest with you. All the rules of engagement have not changed. I believe two were changed in August this year.

Right now 10,000 US troops are deployed to defeat the Taliban and terrorists. which Trump promised they will do. They have not done it yet. Trump has not predicted when they will.

If changing the ROE was all the that was needed now to defeat the Taliban we would still need 100,000 troops again at the beginning.?

But Trump says he only needs 10,000 to WIN. Yeah yahooo. Some major conditions on the ground have changed. What are they?

What was different specifically last August before a couple ROE were modified. What result of all previous combat actually changed the conditions on the ground in 2017 as opposed to 2009.

You failed on your first answer but I will give you another chance.

Here is a clue. It has to do with the success of nation building. Do you know what specifically that is.

I have already mentioned it in previous posts.

And remember you said you were all in on adding 80,000 US troops under the ROE when that was General McChrystal's recommendation to Obama, but now you label that foolish management of the war with the war genius Trump.

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis.

 

[rightwinger]

jknowgood, post: 18938452

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

No. That is impossible and quite stupid to be honest with you. All the rules of engagement have not changed. I believe two were changed in August this year.

Right now 10,000 US troops are deployed to defeat the Taliban and terrorists. which Trump promised they will do. They have not done it yet. Trump has not predicted when they will.

If changing the ROE was all the that was needed now to defeat the Taliban we would still need 100,000 troops again at the beginning.?

But Trump says he only needs 10,000 to WIN. Yeah yahooo. Some major conditions on the ground have changed. What are they?

What was different specifically last August before a couple ROE were modified. What result of all previous combat actually changed the conditions on the ground in 2017 as opposed to 2009.

You failed on your first answer but I will give you another chance.

Here is a clue. It has to do with the success of nation building. Do you know what specifically that is.

I have already mentioned it in previous posts.

And remember you said you were all in on adding 80,000 US troops under the ROE when that was General McChrystal's recommendation to Obama, but now you label that foolish management of the war with the war genius Trump.

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis.

The Great Obama built a coalition to defeat ISIS
Something Fat Donnie could never do. ISIS has been on the run for years.....Fat Donnie is just taking credit for it

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood, post: 18938452

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

No. That is impossible and quite stupid to be honest with you. All the rules of engagement have not changed. I believe two were changed in August this year.

Right now 10,000 US troops are deployed to defeat the Taliban and terrorists. which Trump promised they will do. They have not done it yet. Trump has not predicted when they will.

If changing the ROE was all the that was needed now to defeat the Taliban we would still need 100,000 troops again at the beginning.?

But Trump says he only needs 10,000 to WIN. Yeah yahooo. Some major conditions on the ground have changed. What are they?

What was different specifically last August before a couple ROE were modified. What result of all previous combat actually changed the conditions on the ground in 2017 as opposed to 2009.

You failed on your first answer but I will give you another chance.

Here is a clue. It has to do with the success of nation building. Do you know what specifically that is.

I have already mentioned it in previous posts.

And remember you said you were all in on adding 80,000 US troops under the ROE when that was General McChrystal's recommendation to Obama, but now you label that foolish management of the war with the war genius Trump.

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis.

The Great Obama built a coalition to defeat ISIS
Something Fat Donnie could never do. ISIS has been on the run for years.....Fat Donnie is just taking credit for it

He gave weapons and money to them. Open your eyes for once.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He gave weapons and money to them. Open your eyes for once.

You are a liar. You have been called on that already. You have no facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis

That post was about Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban. Now right now today Trump only needs 10,000 Troops to defeat the Taliban. You agreed that Obama needed 100,000 and strict ROE IN 2010. In seven years there has been ten times improvement in the conditions on the ground. Why?

I know why you have to run from this question. It has drawn you out of your fake reality into a world where the ability to think is required.

 

[jknowgood]

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis

That post was about Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban. Now right now today Trump only needs 10,000 Troops to defeat the Taliban. You agreed that Obama needed 100,000 and strict ROE IN 2010. In seven years there has been ten times improvement in the conditions on the ground. Why?

I know why you have to run from this question. It has drawn you out of your fake reality into a world where the ability to think is required.

No, if Obama did do a good job, I would say so. But he did give weapons to our enemies, so I doubt he did good.

 

[rightwinger]

jknowgood, post: 18938452

Because Trump got rid of rules of engagement.

No. That is impossible and quite stupid to be honest with you. All the rules of engagement have not changed. I believe two were changed in August this year.

Right now 10,000 US troops are deployed to defeat the Taliban and terrorists. which Trump promised they will do. They have not done it yet. Trump has not predicted when they will.

If changing the ROE was all the that was needed now to defeat the Taliban we would still need 100,000 troops again at the beginning.?

But Trump says he only needs 10,000 to WIN. Yeah yahooo. Some major conditions on the ground have changed. What are they?

What was different specifically last August before a couple ROE were modified. What result of all previous combat actually changed the conditions on the ground in 2017 as opposed to 2009.

You failed on your first answer but I will give you another chance.

Here is a clue. It has to do with the success of nation building. Do you know what specifically that is.

I have already mentioned it in previous posts.

And remember you said you were all in on adding 80,000 US troops under the ROE when that was General McChrystal's recommendation to Obama, but now you label that foolish management of the war with the war genius Trump.

Obama's policy was to move and contain. Trump told his general's kill issis.

The Great Obama built a coalition to defeat ISIS
Something Fat Donnie could never do. ISIS has been on the run for years.....Fat Donnie is just taking credit for it

He gave weapons and money to them. Open your eyes for once.

No he didn't

The Great Obama did more to defeat ISIS than any leader on earth and NO, Trump does not know more than the Generals and did not have a secret plan to defeat ISIS

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jknowgood, post: 1894096

No, if Obama did do a good job, I would say so. But he did give weapons to our enemies, so I doubt he did good.

We are talking about facts. A hard fixed metric. Afghanistan is ten times better in terms of the number of US troops needed in 2017 to defeat the Taliban according to Trump and the Pentagon. Are you saying that is not true.

It means conditions on the ground are ten times better over seven years of war. It's improvement. And you can't figure out why it improved so drastically under the Obama/McChrystal plan. A plan you still claim to support.

I have deeply studied McChrystal going back to 2009. His plan actually worked:

Trump has an enemy in Afghanistan that is ten times easier to defeat than it was in 2009, thanks in large part to General McChrystal.

2009: "But it's obvious he [McChrystal] thinks they're [proponents like Trump of pulling out of Taliban controlled areas] wrong. He uses the analogy of a burning building: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn." His chief of intelligence, Gen. Mike Flynn, says flatly, "Civil war would immediately break out. You'd have a failed state, like Somalia, only much harder to get to.

Read more: General McChrystal | Forum

You and Trump are now saying McChrystal spent money and lives foolishly for political propaganda purposes.

Yet Trump is taking advantage of encountering one tenth the mess that Obama faced and brags that he is the one to defeat the Taliban. All that went on before him was foolish.

Trump trashes McChrystal and your heart is all a flutter for the orange faced disrespectful clown.

What is wrong with you and all your conservative phonies?

 

[ColonelAngus]

"After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country!"Trump pre-Christmas tweet from the assmanderinchief.

That money funded those US Military troops who fought, took wounds and died for what Trump calls a foolish mission.

Merry Christmas troops. You were fools to serve according to Trump.

Sicko conservatives support this orange buffoon. How sick can you get conservatives?

Quite the aid and support to the Taliban insurgents Trump is.

He said $7 Trillion....he is a liar.

The estimate is $5 - $8 Trillion, not exactly $7 Trillion.

Trump is a liar!

 

[SavannahMann]

You know, partisans on both sides are completely full of shit.

Trump is not winning in Afghanistan, because we have no plan to win, no path to Victory.

Obama was not Winning in Afghanistan. Again, because we have no plan to win, and no path to that victory.

Both of you partisan groups are full of shit.

Seriously, let’s discuss it. Bush and then Obama drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan, sort of. Sure there were attacks now and then, but they were just remnants according to official reports. Then we heard how it was all Pakistan’s fault that these Taliban and Al Queda forces had a safe haven just across a line on a map. We spent more money, and lives, and then it was ISIS that was a huge threat. ISIS that had territory.

ISIS that was being armed by us. That by the way, is not even debatable at this moment. Those coalitions that the Obama fans are talking about, are the ones who are arming and financing ISIS. Jordan and Turkey were buying the Oil stolen from Syria, and Jordan was intercepting shipments for the “moderate jihadist elements” and selling them on the Black Market for Oil, while our dear Allies Turkey was just buying the Oil.

But wait, Trump has put an end to that, sort of. He stopped the sending of weapons through Jordan, for now. I’m certain that the weapons are still flowing like water, we have to get Assad or something.

The truth is that our Allies are just as full of shit as you partisans are.

We will lose in Afghanistan, because we have no idea what Victory is. Eventually, someone in Washington will figure out how to pretend that there has been some sort of Victory, and then pull the troops out. The nation will fall to the Taliban named whatever you want to pretend it is to have changed, or something. We left Libya in chaos, we will leave Syria in Chaos, and we’ll leave Afghanistan in Chaos. The only thing is that the hate America first forces will have another Victory, because they have a plan.

All they have to do is hold out until we leave. A decade, two. That’s nothing to these idiots. After all we are in control only when our patrol is standing right there, as soon as we leave, our influence leaves with us.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ColonelAngus, post: 18941278

The estimate is $5 - $8 Trillion, not exactly $7 Trillion.

So deep in fake reality you have imagineered an argument so that you can make fun of it. Hard times in TrumptyDumptyville.

So tell me so smart ColonelAngus whether or not you believe General Stanley McChrystal to be one of Trump's foolish spenders.

"McChrystal, 55, is a purebred warrior, the son of a two-star general, West Point class of '76, a former commander of the elite Rangers Regiment, and, from 2003 to 2008, the head of hunter-killer black ops in Special Operations. He eats one meal a day, works out obsessively every morning at 5, and is so free of body fat that he looks gaunt. Lately, as commander of the war in Afghanistan, he has become a kind of Zen warrior, preaching that often "the shot you don't fire is more important than the one you do." He is a student of what he calls "counterinsurgency math." If you encounter 10 Taliban members and kill two, he says, you don't have eight remaining enemies. You have more like 20: the friends and relatives of the two you killed."


Read more: General McChrystal | Forum

Regarding Afghanistan: So ColonelAngus, do you discuss anything based on facts?

I propose the following is an objectively defined fact.;

Afghanistan is ten times better than it was in terms of the number of US troops needed in 2017 to defeat the Taliban.

It means conditions on the ground are ten times better over seven years of war. It defines improvement. The Obama/McChrystal 2009 plan has achieved a tenfold better outcome for our side.

Trump now has an enemy in Afghanistan that is ten times easier to defeat than it was in 2009, thanks in large part to General McChrystal.

September 2009: "But it's obvious he [McChrystal] thinks they're [proponents like Trump of pulling out of Taliban controlled areas] wrong. He uses the analogy of a burning building: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn." His chief of intelligence, Gen. Mike Flynn, says flatly, "Civil war would immediately break out. You'd have a failed state, like Somalia, only much harder to get to.

Read more: General McChrystal | Forum


Why does Trump say all military and aid operations in Afghanistan was foolishly spent when the war there is ten times easier to fight than it was when Obama took office?

 

[ColonelAngus]

ColonelAngus, post: 18941278

The estimate is $5 - $8 Trillion, not exactly $7 Trillion.

So deep in fake reality you have imagineers an argument so you can make fun of it. Hard times in TrumptyDumptyville.

So tell me so smart ColonelAngus whether or you believe General Stanley McChrystal to be one of Trump's foolish spenders.

"McChrystal, 55, is a purebred warrior, the son of a two-star general, West Point class of '76, a former commander of the elite Rangers Regiment, and, from 2003 to 2008, the head of hunter-killer black ops in Special Operations. He eats one meal a day, works out obsessively every morning at 5, and is so free of body fat that he looks gaunt. Lately, as commander of the war in Afghanistan, he has become a kind of Zen warrior, preaching that often "the shot you don't fire is more important than the one you do." He is a student of what he calls "counterinsurgency math." If you encounter 10 Taliban members and kill two, he says, you don't have eight remaining enemies. You have more like 20: the friends and relatives of the two you killed."


Read more: General McChrystal | Forum

Regarding Afghanistan: So ColonelAngus, do you discuss anything based on facts?

I propose the following is an objectively defined fact.;

Afghanistan is ten times better than it was in terms of the number of US troops needed in 2017 to defeat the Taliban.

It means conditions on the ground are ten times better over seven years of war. It defines improvement. The Obama/McChrystal 2009 plan has achieved a tenfold better outcome for our side.

Trump now has an enemy in Afghanistan that is ten times easier to defeat than it was in 2009, thanks in large part to General McChrystal.

September 2009: "But it's obvious he [McChrystal] thinks they're [proponents like Trump of pulling out of Taliban controlled areas] wrong. He uses the analogy of a burning building: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn." His chief of intelligence, Gen. Mike Flynn, says flatly, "Civil war would immediately break out. You'd have a failed state, like Somalia, only much harder to get to.

Read more: General McChrystal | Forum


Why does Trump say all military and aid operations in Afghanistan was foolishly spent when the war there is ten times easier to fight than it was when Obama took office?

You lost me. What is the lie by Trump you feel like you have uncovered?

Are you claiming the war in Afghanistan was executed without error?

Since when do liberals dig war?