Der Trumpenfuhrer is giving his policy speech on Afghanistan.
So far:
I follow my instincts.
ISIS is losers.
We don't tell enemies what we're doing anymore.
Throwing Pakistan under the bus for harboring militants.
We're not nationbuilders any more, and we don't tell other countries how to live.
I've lifted rules of engagement placed on troops by the previous administration.
He's doing his cokehead sniffling thing again. Our troops FIGHT TO WIN.
India HOT
Pakistan NOT
Quote"Our troops will fight to win," he said. "From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge."
I wonder if the Pakistanis are going to notice that he pretty much called them uncivilized.
QuoteThe next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.
Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices, but Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country's harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace.
Another critical part of the South Asia strategy or America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic harbor of the United States. We appreciate India's important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.
Donald will be remembered fondly for finally defeating Radical Islamic Terror
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 21, 2017, 09:04:52 PM
Donald will be remembered fondly for finally defeating Radical Islamic Terror bringing back Vietnamization
In the 21st century, there is only war.
The God Emperor Trump, encased in the golden throne at Trump tower, wages an eternal war against the forces of Chaos. Meanwhile, inquisitor Barron wages a hidden war against traitors, illegal aliens and heretics.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2017, 09:09:15 PM
Meanwhile, inquisitor Barron wages a hidden war against traitors, illegal aliens and heretics.
And fish sticks.
:lol:
So what does 'winning' mean in this context?
All I know is I'm tired of it.
I have to admit that I don't really understand why we are still there - letting alone claims of in it, to win it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:42:34 PM
We appreciate India's important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.
:lol:
It's starting to become a drinking game.
Quote from: celedhring on August 22, 2017, 03:57:07 AM
:lol:
It's starting to become a drinking game.
He referred to the United States as a "debtor nation," so...OK.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 03:33:44 AM
I have to admit that I don't really understand why we are still there
because you can't afford to lose.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2017, 07:54:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 03:33:44 AM
I have to admit that I don't really understand why we are still there
because you can't afford to lose.
I think we can.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:39:28 PM
Quote"Our troops will fight to win," he said. "From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge."
That's good. It's about time someone told the US troops they were fighting to win. All this time, these guys, they thought they were there to lose. I like a leader like that. Clear instructions and all.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 08:12:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2017, 07:54:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2017, 03:33:44 AM
I have to admit that I don't really understand why we are still there
because you can't afford to lose.
I think we can.
I can't find the NYT article on the subject, but basically, it amounts to this:
If the US pulls back before stabilizing the country and the surrounding area, before making sure the Afghan govt can stand on its own, you will have a repeat of Irak, where ISIS or Alqueada or both take over the country, install their caliphate, use this country as a terrorist training center, like they did before 9/11.
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2017, 06:19:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:39:28 PM
Quote"Our troops will fight to win," he said. "From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge."
That's good. It's about time someone told the US troops they were fighting to win. All this time, these guys, they thought they were there to lose. I like a leader like that. Clear instructions and all.
Ah no.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 22, 2017, 06:27:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 22, 2017, 06:19:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2017, 08:39:28 PM
Quote"Our troops will fight to win," he said. "From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge."
That's good. It's about time someone told the US troops they were fighting to win. All this time, these guys, they thought they were there to lose. I like a leader like that. Clear instructions and all.
Ah no.
that was sarcasm, of course. Also, guys and gals.
"Guys" can refer to a mixed gender group.
So that's the mistake all the past presidents made. They didn't tell their troops to win!
Quote from: Eddie Teach on August 23, 2017, 09:10:03 AM
"Guys" can refer to a mixed gender group.
ah, thanks. :)
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2017, 10:03:07 AM
So that's the mistake all the past presidents made. They didn't tell their troops to win!
kids these days, you have to spell out everything.
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2017, 10:03:07 AM
So that's the mistake all the past presidents made. They didn't tell their troops to win!
To be fair whenever they did things got pretty ugly.
Bin Laden's dead. Al Qaeda in shreds. Mission Accomplished, go home.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2017, 08:23:41 AM
Bin Laden's dead. Al Qaeda in shreds. Mission Accomplished, go home.
AQ is resurging and allying with ISIS. Mission not accomplished.
Boots on the ground are a necessity. So is aerial support in a modern war. But you need intelligence resources too, wich have been crucially lacking since the US decided to invade Iraq. Outside of the British and the Americans, there aren't many NATO countries with an highly sophiscated intelligence network. France mostly concentrates on its former colonies, establishing a new network there is costly and time consuming. Russia is not a big help due to recent history.
You're making the same mistakes as you did in '89-90.
We need soldiers, we need massive reconstruction help, and we need intelligence resource to spot ennemy movements and counter propaganda. And it's another 10 year commitment, because we have to start all over again. Unfortunately, with your current President, you won't be able to convince anyone to join you on the ground.
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2017, 09:24:56 AM
AQ is resurging and allying with ISIS. Mission not accomplished.
Boots on the ground are a necessity. So is aerial support in a modern war. But you need intelligence resources too, wich have been crucially lacking since the US decided to invade Iraq. Outside of the British and the Americans, there aren't many NATO countries with an highly sophiscated intelligence network. France mostly concentrates on its former colonies, establishing a new network there is costly and time consuming. Russia is not a big help due to recent history.
You're making the same mistakes as you did in '89-90.
We need soldiers, we need massive reconstruction help, and we need intelligence resource to spot ennemy movements and counter propaganda. And it's another 10 year commitment, because we have to start all over again. Unfortunately, with your current President, you won't be able to convince anyone to join you on the ground.
I am not familiar with Timmay's mistakes in '89-90. Can you summarize them?
And who is "we" in this last paragraph? You and...?
And since Tim is getting married, I think you are clearly wrong that he won't get anyone to join him.
Most likely bedwetting and things of that sort, given his age.
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2017, 02:07:49 PM
I am not familiar with Timmay's mistakes in '89-90. Can you summarize them?
And who is "we" in this last paragraph? You and...?
And since Tim is getting married, I think you are clearly wrong that he won't get anyone to join him.
sometimes you can be so obtuse.
"You" = USA.
"We" = NATO. It's still a NATO mission out there.
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2017, 02:58:05 PM
sometimes you can be so obtuse.
"You" = USA.
"We" = NATO. It's still a NATO mission out there.
Ah, the moronic attempt to make anthropomorphize nations and international organizations. Sometimes you can be so juvenile. Grownups understand that the USA is an "it," not a "you," and NATO is an "it," not a "we" (or, for Brits, possibly "they" instead of "it").
Here's a free language lesson for you: people who use pronouns without antecedents either don't understand language, or they are trying to be obtuse. In your case, I'd guess chances are about equal that either alternative applies.
:o When did grumbler become tiresome?
Quote from: The Brain on August 25, 2017, 03:49:53 PM
:o When did grumbler become tiresome?
When you killed all those Norwegians.
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2017, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2017, 02:58:05 PM
sometimes you can be so obtuse.
"You" = USA.
"We" = NATO. It's still a NATO mission out there.
Ah, the moronic attempt to make anthropomorphize nations and international organizations. Sometimes you can be so juvenile. Grownups understand that the USA is an "it," not a "you," and NATO is an "it," not a "we" (or, for Brits, possibly "they" instead of "it").
Here's a free language lesson for you: people who use pronouns without antecedents either don't understand language, or they are trying to be obtuse. In your case, I'd guess chances are about equal that either alternative applies.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU