Trump on Afghanistan: Decisions are different when you're president

[Harry Dresden]

As long as you're butthurt about his policy I'm good.

^^^ Party over Country.

same thing lakota does Synth....

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

Regime change in PAKISTAN?!

Condi has already regime-changed Pakistan.

Remember that Pakistan used to be an overt military dictatorship but she persuaded them to change their regime to an elected civilian government.

Regrettably that regime-change of Pakistan was too superficial and insincere to make a profound difference to the hostile intent of the deep state of Pakistan which is still sponsoring terrorism against us.

So a more rigorous regime-change will be required, but in principle it will be more of the regime-change which Pakistan has already conceded too.

Which not only has a population of literally FIVE times that of Afghanistan, but also nuclear weapons?

Sure. The same population and nuclear weapons Pakistan had before when they regime changed.

You are talking WWII level of warfare.

Winning World War II was child's play because only the US had nuclear weapons.

This is the Global War on Terror where the enemy has control of nuclear weapons - Pakistan has nuclear weapons as you pointed out - and so it is step up in difficulty over World War II.

To win this war, we must play our A-team - so that's Condi and me.

But no worries, Condi won the Cold War against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact - they had nuclear weapons too - and she won the Cold War without any exchange of fire of nuclear weapons.

Except against an enemy that does not understand surrender.

To repeat, Pakistan has already agreed to a regime change, Pakistan has already "surrendered" once when they agreed to regime change from a military dictatorship to an elected civilian government.

However, that regime change last time was a somewhat superficial and an insincere regime change - what we should have expected I suppose - therefore we now need a new leadership team with a strategy to press for substantial regime-change which will make all the difference as regards ending Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism.

To what end?

To end terrorism, why else would we fight a Global War on Terrorism to win?

Even if we were to spend the lives and money to fix Pakistan, that doesn't fix the Islamic World.

Well first of all spending lives and money like fools to fail to fix Pakistan, indeed to pay Pakistan to go on sponsoring terrorism against us, to go on paying Pakistan to kill us, is a terrible and a shameful waste of our money and our lives, so we must stop trusting, paying and offering our backs to be stabbed to, the treacherous Pakistani regime.

The problem with the state sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries, Pakistan, Iran and the rest is not their state religion, not Islam, per se but rather those state regime policies, regime orders, regime spending, regime propaganda - far too much of which seems to be geared to the sponsorship of terrorism.

Therefore what needs to be "fixed" or changed are the regimes, not so much the religion as an abstract concept.

We cannot nor should we want to try to remove the Koran from Pakistani homes but we must insist that that Pakistani military intelligence do not incite, pay, arm and supply Afghans and Pakistanis to engage in terrorist warfare in the name of Islam.

How we fix that is that we change those regimes - insist that responsible, friendly leaders take control over the state's money and satellite TV, as I already explained.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.​

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[easyt65]

1. Trump just found out that promises made by CANDIDATES don't always result in execution as President.

2. 'Trump was not specific in what his plan entails.'
- File this one under 'NO SHIT'.
Liberals love sharing and leaking classified, telling our enemies what we are going to do.
Maybe that has something to do with why Bush was able to win the Iraq war only for Obama to lose much of it to ISIS after being entrusted to protect and defend it.

3. 'We have invested too much in it to leave / abandon it'

This is NOT a military objective.

This is not a military strategy.

This is an acknowledgment of just how the country has spent in terms of lives, resources, money, blood, sweat, and tears in waging war in Afganistan.

If this is 'all you have as motivation to stay' it is time to start packing, not for an immediate withdrawl, but for an eventual withdrawl.

IMO Trump, based on advise from his military leaders, will send in more troops, cut the military loose to wage war and make more decisions in the field, put more pressure on Afghanistan's neighbors to step up, but troops will begin pulling out in about a year... (gut feeling).

Afghanistan is not a desert but instead a TAR PIT.

Putin is smiling today, laughing at Trump for following in the footsteps of Bush and Obama by sending in more troops as Afghanistan's divided tribal govt continues to squabble amongst themselves and continues to lose control of parts of the country.

 

[Baz Ares]

Getting OBL was the goal. He was in Pakistan.
Join the Army today, die for nothing or get on the
Military social retirement welfare program.
Clearly, we lost the war in Afghanistan before we went in,
raygoon armed the Taliban, they are still there in force.
Unless you exterminate the populating. And transplant
better people there, this place will never change.

FFS! It's a 3500-year-old plus Tribal Lifestyle of Blood Lettings.
Ethnic groups in Afghanistan - Wikipedia

Mass extermination is the only way to win.

btw. Guess The Great Orange Racist Douche is to pussy to do the rightie thang!
How do the DOPers like them apples?

 

[Correll]

TRUMP'S DEAL WITH DEVILS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Why Trump's new plan for Afghanistan is doomed to fail.

The US media reported in May that Mr Trump was finalising a $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia.

Well I suppose for a $100 billion bribe of such an arms deal with the devils of radical Islamic terrorism, Trump might well be prepared to set aside the Saudi and Pakistani regimes' secret state sponsorship of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack of 9/11 and forgive those same back-stabbing regimes for sponsoring the terrorists who killed and injured thousands of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"It's worth it!" the US arms industry will tell Trump.

Trump's Mother of All Bombs and McMaster's silly little plan for a few thousand more troops for Afghanistan is not going to make the slightest difference to the outcome of the long war that the masterminds who run the deep states of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are waging against the US and its NATO allies.

Like the US Presidents before him, Trump and his forces are going to take their whipping from radical Islamic terrorism and not defeat them because for $100 billion "this is business" and "the war on terror can wait" (until the US gets a president worthy of the name).

Any workable solution to stabilise Afghanistan for the long term must prevent the Pakistani deep state (who act via the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI) from any further state-sponsorship of Pakistani-proxy insurgent forces in Afghanistan.

This can only be done by a regime change that reaches deeper into the Pakistani state than was accomplished when the military dictatorship of Pakistan was made to dress up in civilian clothes and have the window dressing of elections.

Trump may be expecting NATO allies to provide more troops too.

NATO requires a political and military strategy which is beyond the limited wits of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who as Norwegian Prime Minister failed to prevent a lone-wolf fascist terrorist from mass murdering members of his own party's youth wing at Utøya, Norway in 2011.

If Stoltenberg was out of his depth against one lone-wolf Norwegian fascist we can be sure he is out of his depth trying to stabilise Afghanistan too.

So NATO has to force Stoltenberg out as Secretary General and appoint someone else who is competent, someone like me in fact.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.

Admittedly, my strategy would be much more effective if I was serving NATO with the support of former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Therefore NATO really ought to get in contact with Condi to suggest that she and I work as a team to lead NATO as it needs to be led if we are ever to win this war on terror.

THE INTELLIGENCE ON PAKISTAN
The 2-hour BBC documentary "Secret Pakistan" provides the intelligence on Pakistan deep state complicity in sponsorship of terrorism in Afghanistan, of Bin Laden, the Taliban etc.





It ought to be required viewing at the Pentagon but the top brass are too busy kissing Pakistani generals' asses to even be bothered to look where they are crashing their warships into and getting their Navy personnel killed.

Regime change in PAKISTAN?!

Condi has already regime-changed Pakistan.

Remember that Pakistan used to be an overt military dictatorship but she persuaded them to change their regime to an elected civilian government.

Regrettably that regime-change of Pakistan was too superficial and insincere to make a profound difference to the hostile intent of the deep state of Pakistan which is still sponsoring terrorism against us.

So a more rigorous regime-change will be required, but in principle it will be more of the regime-change which Pakistan has already conceded too.

Which not only has a population of literally FIVE times that of Afghanistan, but also nuclear weapons?

Sure. The same population and nuclear weapons Pakistan had before when they regime changed.

You are talking WWII level of warfare.

Winning World War II was child's play because only the US had nuclear weapons.

This is the Global War on Terror where the enemy has control of nuclear weapons - Pakistan has nuclear weapons as you pointed out - and so it is step up in difficulty over World War II.

To win this war, we must play our A-team - so that's Condi and me.

But no worries, Condi won the Cold War against the Soviets and Warsaw Pact - they had nuclear weapons too - and she won the Cold War without any exchange of fire of nuclear weapons.

Except against an enemy that does not understand surrender.

To repeat, Pakistan has already agreed to a regime change, Pakistan has already "surrendered" once when they agreed to regime change from a military dictatorship to an elected civilian government.

However, that regime change last time was a somewhat superficial and an insincere regime change - what we should have expected I suppose - therefore we now need a new leadership team with a strategy to press for substantial regime-change which will make all the difference as regards ending Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism.

To what end?

To end terrorism, why else would we fight a Global War on Terrorism to win?

Even if we were to spend the lives and money to fix Pakistan, that doesn't fix the Islamic World.

Well first of all spending lives and money like fools to fail to fix Pakistan, indeed to pay Pakistan to go on sponsoring terrorism against us, to go on paying Pakistan to kill us, is a terrible and a shameful waste of our money and our lives, so we must stop trusting, paying and offering our backs to be stabbed to, the treacherous Pakistani regime.

The problem with the state sponsors of terrorism - Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries, Pakistan, Iran and the rest is not their state religion, not Islam, per se but rather those state regime policies, regime orders, regime spending, regime propaganda - far too much of which seems to be geared to the sponsorship of terrorism.

Therefore what needs to be "fixed" or changed are the regimes, not so much the religion as an abstract concept.

We cannot nor should we want to try to remove the Koran from Pakistani homes but we must insist that that Pakistani military intelligence do not incite, pay, arm and supply Afghans and Pakistanis to engage in terrorist warfare in the name of Islam.

How we fix that is that we change those regimes - insist that responsible, friendly leaders take control over the state's money and satellite TV, as I already explained.

THE STRATEGY TO WIN

In outline, NATO should employ a strategy of regime-change against the deep Pakistani and Saudi states employing naval blockades and seizing / destroying TV satellites in space to ensure that only our regime-change propaganda is what is being broadcast from space into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not regime deep state lies and excuses.​

i do not share your optimism.

 

[sartre play]

There is the problem, Trump had some good simplistic ideas pre election. sad to say when you have to consider the whole world when dealing with an idea there is never a simple solution.

 

[jillian]

As long as you're butthurt about his policy I'm good.

truth hurts, idiota?

 

[Lakhota]

Yep, things are different when actually president.

 

[Baz Ares]

There is the problem, Trump had some good simplistic ideas pre election. sad to say when you have to consider the whole world when dealing with an idea there is never a simple solution.

Really, seems this did not work in 2009-2012. So we need 400k in troops to control that place.
And spend 1T a year so they are covered under America Cares.

We need to leave. The people who helped us during Dubya misadventures of invasion are dead or relocated.

 

[rightwinger]

It was hilarious listening to Trump read his prepared speech off teleprompters like a sedated robot. Hilarious!

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

Obama sounds like he is searching for the correct word

With Trumps limited vocabulary..... great, the best, bigly

There is not much to choose from

Trump gives great speeches without a teleprompter. Something Obama can't do.

Trump speaks like a third grader.....believe me
Obama was the greatest orator since JFK

 

[Correll]

Did you ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? Sounded like a retard, Trump can talk without one.

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

Obama sounds like he is searching for the correct word

With Trumps limited vocabulary..... great, the best, bigly

There is not much to choose from

Trump gives great speeches without a teleprompter. Something Obama can't do.

Trump speaks like a third grader.....believe me
Obama was the greatest orator since JFK

Grade level counts less than content or courage, in my book. Yours too, btw.


If Trump had spoken as eloquently JFK, would you have voted for him?

 

[jknowgood]

Obama was eloquent

A skill Trump has never developed

Obama sounds like a retarded kid when he can't read what he wants to say. He relied on speech writers.

Obama sounds like he is searching for the correct word

With Trumps limited vocabulary..... great, the best, bigly

There is not much to choose from

Trump gives great speeches without a teleprompter. Something Obama can't do.

Trump speaks like a third grader.....believe me
Obama was the greatest orator since JFK

Grade level counts less than content or courage, in my book. Yours too, btw.


If Trump had spoken as eloquently JFK, would you have voted for him?

No ole rightie only likes a person if their liberal.