Trump becomes an official neocon.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AugustWest, Aug 22, 2017.

  1. So trump is following in the footsteps of Bush and Obama, and giving into the "military industrial complex."
    He could have ended the longest war in history, but instead is sending more troops.

    The excuse is that "a hasty exit will create a vacuum"
    I get that, but we've been there for 16 years.. How is leaving being hasty?

    We can expect more of the same now that bannon is gone.

    Congrats trump, you have officially become the 5th term of Bush and Obama.

    The whole point was to train Afghani troops so they can defend themselves.
    If they can't defend themselves after 16 years, then they never will.

    Good news for trump is that McCain and Lindsey Graham will swoon over him for a few days.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. The Soviets expended vast resources trying to turn Afghanistan into a satellite country and failed. Seems like America is making the same mistake. The Pashtun tribes know their mountains much better than foreigners ever will, and the Taliban and Co. have made an art out of guerrilla tactics over the decades.

    I get the whole "let's not make the Iraq mistake" thinking, but I'm skeptical about what more military efforts will actually achieve.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. #3 AugustWest, Aug 22, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    Yeah 16 years and who knows how many billions in cost, and of course troop and innocent civilian lives.
    Just get the fuck out already. Enough is enough.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. 1900 bombs dropped in Afghanistan this year already.

    Up 181% from Obama.

    And Lindsay Graham the swamp King says he is proud. He just called trump "my commander in chief"
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. OPINION | Sen. Rand Paul: 16 years on, it's past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan


    The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.

    The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It's time to come home now.

    Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.

    But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn't fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

    The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don't go to wars that aren't necessary.

    Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?

    Nation-building should not be our job, and it has consistently been a fool's errand for us, particularly in this region. There is no reason to believe we can do it in Afghanistan, and certainly no reason to believe we can do it without a permanent, costly presence in the country.

    So I strongly disagree with the administration's actions here. I've spoken to the president, and I know he wants to end this war. We've all heard him say it. But talk won't get it done. Although I've been informed that the president rejected larger expansions of troops than the one announced this week, that's not good enough. He should have rejected this one and stuck to his principles. He knows this war is over, and he - unlike the last two presidents - should have the guts to end it for real, on his watch.

    Regardless of the argument over the number of troops, I also will insist my colleagues take up a larger argument over the power to declare war. I believe we have allowed the executive to exercise far too much power in recent years.

    This is one of the reasons I objected just before the recess when the Senate moved to consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I have an amendment that I will insist be considered that would repeal the 2001 AUMF on Afghanistan. That AUMF is outdated, overcome by events, and provides a feeble bit of cover for people who still want to be there.

    If the president and my colleagues want to continue the war in Afghanistan, then at the very least Congress should vote on it. I'll insist they do this fall, and I'll be leading the charge for "no."

    Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Yeah bombing won't achieve much considering their vast network of caves and tunnels in the aforementioned mountains. Plus there's the whole Vietnam effect. America perceives this as a war against international terror. Many of the Afghan tribes probably view it as a war for their homeland. Attempting to bomb the Vietnamese into submission didn't succeed, despite more bombs being dropped on them than were dropped in all WWII.

    This is a war where America can't leverage it's superior air force, navy, and technologically superior army. The only way to "defeat" the Taliban would be to hunt them through the mountains and the tunnels, which is a tactical nightmare. It would cost thousands of lives with no certainty of success.

    Yeah, I'm not a general or anything, but I just don't see it.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1

  8. I'm an Independent, but a big supporter of Trump, at the moment I'm very disappointed in his decision to remain the status quo.

    As the president he's will take blame, as he should for continuing the war. I will say I honestly believe there's a powerful and influential group of people within the government that is surrounding the president, deep state, but this should not absolve Trump from his decision.

    I think Trump calling out Pakistan and seeking to end foreign aid, and highlighting India is brilliant. Pakistan hates India and trump laying hints to aligning himself with India if Pakistan doesn't cooperate meaning stop providing safe harbor for terrorist, i believe is a tactic within the Art of War, by Sun Tzu.
  9. War is the quickest way to get support at home unfortunately. John "The Legend" McCain is already on the train.

    Certainly not the cheapest way, which would be humility. But this will get that violent patriot rally cry going.
  10. People was saying Banning was a racist and all this "brew ha" to have him removed, but i found that he was focus on what's beneficial to America.

    I beleive in his speech he mentioned 9/11 more than once, I believe someone in that group must've reinforced the concept that if he pulls out it will create a vacuum for terrorism as a base to launch attacks on the USA and he would be blame.
  11. rand paul is again seemingly the only true conservative type voice left anymore. these politicians glowing over this is sickening. Leave him out to dry on every single conceivable thing, but praise him for dropping a big bomb and then what he said tonight.

    "We are not nation-building. We are killing terrorists," he said.

    I dunno, afghanistan is a tough call, but at this point like rand paul said and even trump years ago, its time to get the fuck out. But I have a feeling that maybe...just maybe america's opioid epidemic and our occupation of afghanistan may be directly connected...and well..lots of people would lose lots of money if we left. Overall, not a fan of putting more troops into harms way. But, if there is a light at the end of a tunnel, a winning strategy, then so be it. I hope so, we are probably "better" off with a stable afghanistan that doesn't want to burn our country to ashes.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Pretty much expected. I'm not sure why anyone would think that he'd put an end to these mindless wars....

    Four thousand more troops, sinks us deeper into that shit hole than we have been in a while.

    If it's not obvious that he is doing it for the benefit of the military complex, and that he is part of the swamp, which he was supposed to drain, then I don't know what is.

    Another day, another broken promise to his supporters.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  13. I don't think you can conclude that any and all military action by a country constitutes serving the military industrial complex.
  14. Who does it serve, the toy industry?

    If government military contractors are making profit, it means that any and all military action is beneficial to them.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. while I do agree that it serves the military industrial complex, because, well, everything military does. I would also say that its tough to say at this point its a broken promise. If the extra troops lead to us driving out the taliban for real, and actually being able to bring everyone home, I would consider that a promise kept not broken. So on the outside its easy to draw that conclusion, I think he still has another 3.4 years to go in office before you could really say that promise was broken.
  16. #16 well highdrated, Aug 22, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017

    But while I'm here let's send four thousand more soldiers to be "shot in the back".

    No surprise that you would defend trump's action, even if he'd shit in your living room. (Well in the long run, I need a new carpet anyways).

    Fact remains... he sent more US citizens to die, so far our losses there far outweight any terror attack. Forget about the cost to taxpayers.

    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. That won't happen. It'll never get the support from congress.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Can we see the light at the end of the tunnel yet? The news is saying his plan is vague with few details.
    That means he has no plan, he is making it up as he goes along, his usual M.O. Big surprise!
    • Like Like x 2
  19. The plan is to continue what Bush and Obama have been doing for 16 years.. Which is a never ending war on terror.

Share This Page